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:
Scene of the Crimes: Just where was 29 Hanbury Street............. - by The Station Cat 42 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by The Station Cat 46 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by The Station Cat 47 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by barnflatwyngarde 47 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Fisherman 48 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by Pcdunn 51 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (27 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (12 posts)
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - (11 posts)
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - (10 posts)
Visual Media: Dutfield's yard victim in situ - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Bank Holiday Murders by Tom Wescott (2014) - (4 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
  #2231  
Old 12-18-2016, 01:58 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
A quick online search of what other writers say:

"The flesh from the thighs and legs, together with the breasts and nose, had been placed by the murderer on the table" (Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, Lane and Gregg, 1995)

"Both her breasts too had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table." (Trial of Jack the Ripper, Euan McPherson, 2004)

"The kidneys and heart had been torn out and laid, together with her sliced-off breasts, on a table beside the bed." (1964 article in Books and Bookmen)

"The breasts, too, were cut away and placed on a bedside table. The heart and both kidneys had been removed and mounted alongside the breasts." (Great Mysteries of History, Kenneth B Patrick, 1973)
Looks like I need to thank you, then.

Saved me the cost of a book at the very least.

Ike
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2232  
Old 12-18-2016, 02:37 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkmoon View Post
I met mike barrett a few times from what I gather from our meetings was that the diary was written shortly before its "discovery" mike barrett didnt write it but im pretty convinced he was in the room when it was written I dont know who wrote it for sure but I have an idea who did.
Thanks for the reply. It does therefore appear that Mike Barrett knew a great deal more than he was prepared to disclose publicly.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2233  
Old 12-18-2016, 03:09 PM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,782
Default

Mike barrett and his wife knew everything
__________________
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
  #2234  
Old 12-20-2016, 08:56 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkmoon View Post
Mike barrett did not write the diary but he certainly was in the room.when it was written
If you were there too, Pinky, or if you have it on film, I'd need to start believing in the supernatural.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2235  
Old 12-20-2016, 09:38 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The point of a diary is to record the thoughts and actions of the diarist. This can be done in any form of book, for example an exercise book, as long as there is space to write.
Music to my ears, David. (Or it would be if I was hearing this instead of reading it. ) For years we've had objections on the grounds that the hoaxer made a grave error because the real Maybrick would not have used 'any form of book' for recording his thoughts and deeds, but could have afforded a fit-for-purpose proper diary, with dates and everything, for the years in question. My late father could have afforded umpteen exercise books for making notes for his own purposes, but he would always use the very last bit of available scrap paper before buying new.

Quote:
...I'm no expert on 19th century diaries, but the question itself acknowledges that some diaries don't have evidence of the year on every major page and perhaps that was what Barrett was after. Even if the date was on every "major" page, some diaries have a notes section at the back which do not bear the date so that (as long as the year of the diary is not embossed on the front cover) Barrett could have removed all evidence of the year of the diary yet still retained the paper.
All fair enough, but the question remains why Mike would have left himself open to receiving a tiny - worse than useless - diary for the year 1891, two years after his chosen subject had kicked the bucket, if he was really planning to use it for a lengthy fake ripper confession.

Quote:
Above all, Barrett doesn’t know if he can use an 1890 or 1891 diary with blank pages until he actually sees it.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Why put an order in that doesn't specify a latest possible date, if he knew Maybrick's last words had to be written by May 1889 at the latest, before diaries for 1890 would presumably have been available?

Quote:
He can't just walk into a shop and pick up the ideal 1888-1889 diary. So he puts out the advert to try and get hold of any diary from the 1880s or thereabouts. But realizing that his task is impossible (as the only one available is a useless one from 1891) he goes to an auction and decides to use a photo album after removing the photographs. Hardly ideal but that's the best he can do.
As the Battlecrease evidence isn't compatible with anyone purchasing the photo album (or Victorian guard book) from O&L and transcribing the 'diary' into it after Mike received the tiny 1891 diary, I can't consider the above scenario workable. My feeling is that when Mike ordered the 1891 diary he hadn't really taken much notice of when 'Sir Jim' was meant to have recorded the events in 'the' diary. There are no dates within the main text to help him, but if he had planned this hoax he'd have needed to know them inside out.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 12-20-2016 at 09:45 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2236  
Old 12-20-2016, 11:07 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Why put an order in that doesn't specify a latest possible date, if he knew Maybrick's last words had to be written by May 1889 at the latest, before diaries for 1890 would presumably have been available?
As far as I'm concerned Caz, it's your response that doesn't make any sense.

On the one hand, it is music to your ears that a diary can be any form of book, i.e. it does not have to be a printed book bearing the year divided into months and days, yet you seem to be assuming that Barrett was expecting exactly such a book with (for example) the year 1891 emblazoned all over it.

If Barrett (as the forger) had limited himself to asking for an 1888 diary he would probably have had no chance of getting one. He needed a wider range. An 1891 diary would have been perfect for his requirements if it had blank pages. He would just have cut out anything indicating it was from 1891 and, voila, he has a diary containing paper from the exact right period which no-one could prove was not from 1888.

So I fail to see any basis to your objection.

If we assume that the actual diary is a forgery then it is exactly what the real forger did. Purchases a Victorian or Edwardian scrapbook (not necessarily from 1888), cuts the pages out and bingo - he now has a diary that could have been from 1888 and no-one can scientifically prove otherwise.

And perhaps you can tell me: why did Barrett want a diary from the Victorian period with blank pages?
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2237  
Old 12-20-2016, 11:09 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
As the Battlecrease evidence isn't compatible with anyone purchasing the photo album (or Victorian guard book) from O&L and transcribing the 'diary' into it after Mike received the tiny 1891 diary, I can't consider the above scenario workable.
What 'Battlecrease evidence' Caz?

Please don't tell me this is secret evidence that you can't discuss (a la Pierre).
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk

Last edited by David Orsam : 12-20-2016 at 11:15 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2238  
Old 12-20-2016, 11:18 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Further to earlier posts about the Underwood book. Here is the full quote from it relating to the breasts on the table:

'But to return to the scene of the murder: on a table by the bed there were little piles of flesh, neatly laid out: the breasts, the heart and the kidneys and, horror of horror, other parts of the body and dripping intestines hung from the picture nails like the grotesque and fiendish whims of a disordered mind.'
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2239  
Old 12-20-2016, 11:47 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

I sometimes wonder if people actually read my posts. Here is what I recently posted in #2149 (with some added highlighting):

'The earliest written reference to a "one off job" that I have found is from 1912 (which is about 10 or 20 years earlier than the dictionaries state). However, I have found references to making a 'one off' in a manufacturing context from as early as 1903. All the early references come from engineering trade journals and they all relate to manufacturing, producing or casting 'one off' items and similar.'

This relates to something posted on another forum.
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2240  
Old 12-20-2016, 11:52 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

A salutary lesson over in JTR Forums where someone thought they had found an example of 'one off' meaning unique in this case a unique person from 1882.

Unfortunately, he or she was deceived by the Google Book snippet view which sometimes shows a volume date as the first in the series rather than the relevant volume from which the text has come. The 'one off' reference was, in fact, from a 1975 volume of the British Bee Journal.

Encouraged by the original error, however, one poster stated that the argument that "one off instance" did not exist prior to 1888 is a "ridiculous argument". It is not.

I have already explained why it is impossible for the phrase "one off instance" to have existed during or before 1888. Similarly, it would have been impossible for a person to have been described as 'a one off' during or before 1888. There is a linear and traceable progression of the expression 'one off' whereby it evolves through three distinct phases. Phase 1 being a mere and unremarkable quantity of an item off a stocklist for a manufacturing or engineering project, phase two being a unique manufactured or engineered product or design (a one off job) and Phase 3 being the wider and more general use to mean unique people or occasions (or instances). Phase 1 is nineteenth century, Phase 2 is early twentieth century (certainly after 1888) and Phase 3 is later twentieth century. Phase 3 cannot, and never will be found to, come before Phase 2 .

Consequently the occurrence of this expression to mean a unique person in 1882 or to mean a unique occurrence - would be unhistorical and anachronistic and, therefore, impossible.

I hope that is clear and any further finds from Google books will be checked properly in future. For the avoidance of doubt, all the quotes I provided earlier in this thread came from the hard copy volumes of the journals which I checked specifically to avoid the problem of misdating from snippet views.
__________________
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 11:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.