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 Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - by Robert 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by Robert 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by Robert 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (28 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (20 posts)
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - (16 posts)
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (2 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (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
  #51  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:23 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Mike's affidavit is certainly not thrown into question if there is even the slightest doubt that it was in Mike's own words and that he was aware of what he was signing. Affidavits or witness statements are frequently drafted by lawyers on the basis of what a witness has told them and it's not impossible that there can be a misunderstanding over a date which is not picked up in the final draft. If Alan Gray took on the same role as a solicitor, the key thing is that the affidavit was based on what Mike had told him, so unless there is an allegation being made that Gray fabricated the affidavit then, even if Mike didn't read it properly before signing it, it still reflects his version of events.

And what I note is that the key point of my post has been totally ignored. That key point is that there are a number of obvious dating errors in Mike's affidavit. I mean, he says he bought his word processor in 1985. Does the fact that this is the wrong year means that he never bought a word processor? Clearly not. But that's the logic being applied to the guardbook. And Mike says he came up with his forgery story in November 1993, which he then changes to December 1993. But that isn't correct. So does that mean he never offered up a forgery story? No, he did but it was in June 1994. He says that Tony died in about May 1990. But he didn't. So does that mean that Tony didn't die? Obviously not. He died in August 1991. Given these errors, the fact that Mike might have got the date wrong about the acquisition of the guardbook is hardly a fatal flaw.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:31 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 266
Default

Of course Mike was supposed to have bought the diary from Eddie, but since there is no evidence either way, it hardly matters.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-24-2018, 08:27 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Anne Graham lied? Can you give me an example?
Well I believe she lied about the diary coming from her family and I thought you did too.

If so, she also lied when typing up Mike's research notes and letting Doreen and co believe they dated back to 1991, when Tony Devereux died, and were compiled because he'd been left with a diary he knew nothing about.

Even if all that had been true, she'd have been lying to Mike by omission, for letting him think she knew no more than he did. Ditto with Doreen, Shirley, Robert, Paul Feldman, Keith... do you want me to go on?

As you know, I believe she first saw the guardbook in March 1992, not in the late 1960s. And David seems to think so too, although we obviously differ over its contents at that point.

Quote:
You've spent much of the past two weeks, Dear caz, arguing that Anne showed great innocence and integrity by bringing forth the maroon diary. So if she was selling pork pies why am I supposed to believe her?
You are not 'supposed' to believe anything you don't want to believe, rj.

But really - great innocence and integrity? It was more a case of Anne apparently seeing no need to hide anything regarding the red diary, which it seems she considered to be a red herring - just the result of Mike doing something impetuous, in the early days of not knowing quite what to do with 'the' diary. From Anne's point of view it was something he ordered [which she later paid for] around the same time he was attracting the interest of a literary agent. Did Anne have good reason at the same time to warn him strongly against getting the bloody thing published, and to advise him to write a "story" around it instead, if he refused to drop it like a hot brick?

Quote:
Had the Barretts been involved in the creation of the Diary, then lying about when the word processor was purchased makes perfect sense. It was an attempt to disguise Mike's earlier career as a would-be (and partially successful) freelance writer. Had they stolen the Diary from Fast Eddy, this lie about when they purchased the word processor would have been pointless and unnecessary. Much the same can be said about the purchase of the red diary.
But did Anne ever attempt to deny Mike's creative endeavours, which she readily admitted to tidying and typing up for him? Wouldn't that have been pointless and unnecessary considering the evidence was out there? It might have been pointless and unnecessary to lie about the purchase of the maroon diary, but she didn't lie about this, did she? If you are referring to her explanation for why Mike wanted it, she could only have repeated any reason he had given himself. He made the enquiry and there is no evidence she knew anything about it until May 1992, when it came to her attention that Mike had been sent something he hadn't yet paid for.

"What were you thinking, Mike? You already had the diary."

"But you didn't want me to get that one published. You thought the book was nicked and we'd get found out."

"Yes, that's why I said you could just write a novel around it."

"So I thought, I know, I could write it in the form of an actual Victorian diary, so I wanted to see what one would look like."

"God, Mike, you do have some strange ideas."

Could you remind me, rj, of exactly what Anne did claim about the wretched word processor, when she claimed it and under what circumstances? Was it a deliberate lie or was she only being asked to remember what it had been used for in a diary context? She'd have been thinking on her feet as it was, and trying to keep the story straight, if the word processor was first employed on diary business in March/April 1992, but she was claiming it was from August 1991.

Thank you.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 04-24-2018 at 08:36 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-24-2018, 08:55 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Anne Graham lied?
Funnily enough, rj, I was merely repeating what you had previously posted yourself: 'the fact that Mike and Anne lied...'.

I responded by saying okay, the Barretts both lied. So what?

I really can't see how it helps you to nail down that they were lying about the diary coming from the conveniently deceased Tony in 1991 because they forged it between them over the first 11 days of April 1992, and not lying about the diary coming from the same conveniently deceased Tony in 1991 because it came from the inconveniently alive electrician in March 1992.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-24-2018, 09:22 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
Mike's affidavit is certainly not thrown into question if there is even the slightest doubt that it was in Mike's own words and that he was aware of what he was signing. Affidavits or witness statements are frequently drafted by lawyers on the basis of what a witness has told them and it's not impossible that there can be a misunderstanding over a date which is not picked up in the final draft. If Alan Gray took on the same role as a solicitor, the key thing is that the affidavit was based on what Mike had told him, so unless there is an allegation being made that Gray fabricated the affidavit then, even if Mike didn't read it properly before signing it, it still reflects his version of events.
Was Alan Gray qualified to take on 'the same role as a solicitor'? In any case, judging by the wild goose chases Mike took Gray on, and all the lies he told, while attempting to convince him of his own role in the diary's creation, and considering Gray's eventual total disillusionment with Mike and his shenanegans, I'm finding it hard to believe anyone could accept the garbled January 1995 version of events, whether it was garbled by Mike in the telling, or by Alan Gray in translation, or by a real solicitor, pissed to the bollocks on Mike's Scotch.

Quote:
And what I note is that the key point of my post has been totally ignored. That key point is that there are a number of obvious dating errors in Mike's affidavit...

...Given these errors, the fact that Mike might have got the date wrong about the acquisition of the guardbook is hardly a fatal flaw.
If you say so, David. For me, it's the order of events, along with the implication that everything, from the purchase of the materials and the initial drafting of the diary, to writing it out in the very recently acquired guardbook, took not much longer than those 11 days to complete, and that it then had to be left for a while after completion because Tony was severely ill at the time, which puts the mockers on any idea that this affidavit was grounded in 'reality' as most people would define it.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 04-24-2018 at 09:30 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-24-2018, 09:34 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Of course, anyone can take on the role of a solicitor by drafting an affidavit if the deponent wants them to and no qualifications are necessary.

With the chronology of events, one has to take into account the possibility of confusion and that what Mike was trying to say was that the Diary was substantially drafted while Tony was alive, then left alone, before it was transcribed in March/April 1992. This would be perfectly consistent with how Mike slots to the little red diary into the chronology which we know for a fact was only acquired in March 1992.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:56 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
With the chronology of events, one has to take into account the possibility of confusion and that what Mike was trying to say was that the Diary was substantially drafted while Tony was alive, then left alone, before it was transcribed in March/April 1992.
Incidentally, the fact that I've already said this on more than one occasion should not stop the counterpoint being made again because it's important to go round and round in circles until the end of time.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-27-2018, 04:22 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
Of course, anyone can take on the role of a solicitor by drafting an affidavit if the deponent wants them to and no qualifications are necessary.
Hmmm, and we have seen the results.

Quote:
With the chronology of events, one has to take into account the possibility of confusion and that what Mike was trying to say was that the Diary was substantially drafted while Tony was alive, then left alone, before it was transcribed in March/April 1992. This would be perfectly consistent with how Mike slots to the little red diary into the chronology which we know for a fact was only acquired in March 1992.
Only 'the possibility'? It's not much, is it?

I suppose there's also the possibility that what Mike was trying to say was that the diary was completed in Gerard Kane's shaky hand in early 1990, two years after Tony died and six months before it was drafted on the word processor Anne bought at a car boot sale in 1993. They then had to stop for a while because Tony was looking a bit peaky and in need of a daily pick-me-up, and Mike had to correct all of Anne's speling and grandma. They were only happy to go ahead when Tony finally died again in 1992 of sherry poisoning and daily pestering.

This would be perfectly consistent with Mike's unique ability to stir the tiniest amount of fact into a mix of impure fiction and pure fantasy and still manage to come up smelling of credibility.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 04-27-2018 at 04:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-27-2018, 04:32 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
Incidentally, the fact that I've already said this on more than one occasion should not stop the counterpoint being made again because it's important to go round and round in circles until the end of time.
Or until one of us disappears up their own backside, David Oozlum.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-27-2018, 04:36 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
This would be perfectly consistent with Mike's unique ability to stir the tiniest amount of fact into a mix of impure fiction and pure fantasy and still manage to come up smelling of credibility...
I should have added:

...in some circles.

Love,

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


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 03:36 AM.


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