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:
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by jerryd 24 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by John G 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (20 posts)
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - (9 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (8 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files - (3 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Victorian Street Prostitutes - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Please allow me to introduce myself.... - (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
  #2271  
Old 12-22-2016, 07:29 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Hi Caz,

I would normally shrink from even thinking of posting on this thread, as I have to watch my blood-pressure and general mental state, but what do you genuinely think about Pinkmoon's claim that Barrett 'was in the room when the Diary was written?' Sorry if that's a rather facile question, but his claim intrigues the hell out of me, and he seems to be very quiet on these boards at the moment.

Graham
Hi Graham,

Just seen this one as I was posting to David.

I'm buggered if I know what's got into Pinkmoon, but it reads like he's been at the Christmas sherry.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2272  
Old 12-22-2016, 07:52 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I'm not sure what makes you think I am trying to hurry you up or not being patient. Take as long as you need.

And can I put in a request for an answer to my question (first posed yesterday): why did Barrett want a diary from the Victorian period with blank pages?

I would really like to hear your answer to this but, again, in your own time Caz.
Just a quickie for you here - I have no idea why Barrett wanted a Victorian diary with blank pages, nor how one could now go about proving it. Even if he were here to explain his motivation to you and you were satisfied, it would still be a matter of faith over actual evidence.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2273  
Old 12-22-2016, 08:29 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Just a quickie for you here - I have no idea why Barrett wanted a Victorian diary with blank pages, nor how one could now go about proving it. Even if he were here to explain his motivation to you and you were satisfied, it would still be a matter of faith over actual evidence.

Love,

Caz
X
Topline, most plausible interpretation (assuming no guilt on his part): He wanted to write out the journal in another document and take that to London rather than risk taking the original. When that plan fell quickly apart, he took the journal, and the rest is ...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2274  
Old 12-22-2016, 08:38 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,556
Default

No doubt it would be a damn sight easier to buy an 19th century journal in 1888 than it would in the 20th century. A modern hoaxer would have to make do with whatever he could get his hands on from that period, i.e. a scrapbook.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2275  
Old 12-22-2016, 10:42 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c.d. View Post
I am sure that I will regret posting again on this thread but this question has been bothering me and I would like to get other's opinions. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Maybrick was the Ripper and that the diary is legitimate. Wouldn't you think that he would have made some provision for it upon his death? Either disclose its (most likely hidden) location to a trusted friend with instructions that it be burned unread thus keeping his reputation intact or that it be turned over to the police as sort of a **** you. After all, the diary was indeed a "hot potato."....I probably should have included the idea of keeping it so well hidden that no one would ever find it.
The author of the diary makes it clear that he wants it to be found (and read) and for history to know his name.

"I place this now in a place where it shall be found I pray whoever should read this will find it in their heart to forgive me. Remind all, whoever you may be, that I was once a gentle man. May the good lord have mercy on my soul, and forgive me for all I have done.

I give my name that all know of me, so history do tell, what love can do to a gentle man born.

Yours truly

Jack the Ripper"
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2276  
Old 12-22-2016, 10:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c.d. View Post
I have no dog in this fight but will simply take on the role of devil's advocate. Are we to assume that there was an individual or individuals or even some organization that recorded every single person's utterances either spoken or written in order to determine first usage of a word or phrase?
It's a bit depressing to read this kind of comment. Of course every single person's utterances are not recorded. But you need to have some kind of understanding how language works. It does not exist in a vacuum. What we are being asked to accept is that the diary author writes a phrase which is not repeated in any similar form for at least fifty years. It's totally unrealistic.

As I've already said, the use of "one off" to mean a person or thing (instance) is in effect a metaphor of an existing expression initially only used by engineers, builders etc. to mean a unique product or design. There is no evidence that THAT expression even existed in the nineteenth century but even if it did was a technical trade term only, not used by the general population.

So we are being asked to believe that the diary author took an expression that had a narrow specific meaning in a trade context and, on his own, turned it into a metaphor for him hitting his wife on one occasion whereby he apologises to her saying it was "a one off instance". He expects his wife to understand it and the readers of his diary to understand it even though it has never, as far as is known, appeared in print (or any form of writing) before this, even in the technical trade journals.

Then, despite this being an obviously useful expression, no writer of literature, no writer of non-fiction, no journalist, no civil servant or government employee in the millions of official government reports which survive, no known diarist, ever uses it again, or anything similar outside of the context an actual physical product or job, for at least fifty years. In 24 years no-one has been able to find a similar written instance of the phrase. Absent it being some kind of regional expression, only used in a particular local area, people just don't walk around for fifty years using phrases like this which don't get recorded somewhere. Further, if you actually do the research of the written use of the phrase "one off" during the twentieth century you can see it evolving before your eyes from some kind of manufactured product or job into a wider phrase with more general application. There is a clear linear progression.

I repeat an authority I provided earlier from Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Modern Fable:

One-off. An unusual or unique person, especially positively so. The expression dates from the 1930s and originally applied to a single manufactured object of some kind, often produced as a sample or specimen.

We have an expert in Victorian literature from Oxford University, Dr Kate Flint, telling us that the expression didn't exist in 1888. The Oxford English Dictionary has no knowledge of it in the nineteenth century.

Against this, the argument (mainly on another forum!) seems to be "oh well, maybe it did". I suggest this is not an acceptable response.
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2277  
Old 12-22-2016, 10:52 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Doesn't happen to me often (unless I'm reading my own), so thought I'd put it out there that David Orsam may actually be a funny guy. Mebbes aye, mebbes no.
I can confirm that he definitely has no sense of humour.
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2278  
Old 12-22-2016, 10:56 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi David,

The above is #1574. Is this one of the posts you wished me to address? Beyond all the references to Outhwaite and Litherland in Ripper Diary, which you said you had later re-read, I'm not sure what you wanted me to say? Wasn't Caligo talking generally about auction houses in the north west, rather than O&L specifically?

The bottom line is that the details given by Mike were not recognised or accepted by O&L on any occasion that researchers have spoken directly with members of staff there.

No doubt you'd have been happier to see a written statement from the good people at O&L giving chapter and verse, but there seems little reason to believe they knew less about their own business and operating systems than Mike did, or that they were lying. And none of their customers from the late 80s/early 90s has come forward as far as I am aware to dispute O&L's version or confirm Mike's.

If you could clarify what it is you are still unhappy about I'll try to address that more specifically.
I'm not unhappy about anything Caz.

To remind you, you said that Barrett's claims were "demonstrably untrue". I asked you to demonstrate this but, in doing so, to take into account what I said in #1574.

The reason for this request was that there was no point in you coming back to say "the details of how the O&L auctions were carried out were in reality different to what Barrett says" if you canít be sure that O&L did not give out receipts in the way that Caligo described so that Barrett was simply confusing his terminology by referring to a "ticket" rather than a "receipt."

So, yes, if you want to demonstrate that Barrett's statement was untrue you do need some form statement from O&L giving chapter and verse otherwise you are not demonstrating the untruth.
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2279  
Old 12-22-2016, 11:02 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Right, this one is #1922.

Again, all I can usefully add is that such a search - whatever dates it was based on - could not have turned up the Victorian guard book used by the diarist unless Mike had told the truth about bidding for it there and winning it, but told a pack of 'demonstrable' untruths about what went on at the auction house. If he was so forgetful by the mid-90s that he thought the purchase was in 1990, and not 1992, and that he obtained it after the tiny 1891 diary arrived, it might explain why he had to make up the finer details from whole cloth, but that's what he did according to O&L.
All I can usefully say in response is that a search by O&L for a Victorian guard book sale in 1990 was never going to produce any useful results if the sale was actually in 1992 - and if the sale was in 1992, Barrett's affidavit on this point is not shown to be untrue, just confused.

Perhaps I should also add that Barrett specifically states in his 1995 affidavit that he purchased the 1891 diary before the Victorian Guard Book, and we know that 1891 diary was purchased in 1992.
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2280  
Old 12-22-2016, 11:10 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
But let me ask you this, David: are you seriously considering the possibility that the guard book - minus its 63 pages of writing - was won at auction after 26 March 1992 and transformed into the diary, as we know and hate it, in time to hand over on 13 April 1992 for the first of an unknown number of close visual examinations and forensic tests, by an unknown number of professional document examiners, specialising in an unknown number of fields? Wouldn't the Barretts have both needed to be clinically insane to attempt this, in the wake of the disastrous Hitler Diaries, and then imagine in a million years that they wouldn't be banged up for fakery before either of them could say - let alone spell - "Kujau"?
Yes, Caz, that is exactly the possibility I'm considering. Barrett said in his 1995 affidavit that it took 11 days to write the diary. He could have said 3 months or 6 months or 2 years but he said 11 days. That would have given him more than sufficient time between 26 March and 13 April 1992. I see absolutely no reason why it could not have been written in 11 days, especially if a draft had been prepared before that, so the contents had already been worked out. But even without that, I see no problem in those 63 pages being written in 11 days, at a relaxing average of 5.7 pages per day.

And I'm not sure what you think document document forgers do Ė put their forgeries into storage for 10 years to allow them time to ferment or something? I'm sure the good ones have techniques such as putting them in the oven or whatever to give them signs of being old. But it's obviously not that easy to scientifically establish if a document is new or old, which is why there are so many document forgeries in existence.

According to the Sunday Times, Dr Baxendale, an experienced document examiner, carried out an ink solubility test on the diary in 1992 and concluded that the ink had been applied to the paper recently, within the last two or three years. According to Melvin Harris: "the ink dissolved at the fast rate one would find in a newish ink." Harris also says: "In August and October 1993, independent visual examination of the Diary ink, by myself, by Dr Joe Nickell, by Kenneth Rendell, by Maureen Casey Owens and by Robert Kuranz, revealed no signs of ageing. We were all viewing a fresh, washed-out looking ink, that gave signs of having been diluted. So at that time there were six examinations that all pointed to one conclusion: the ink was new."

You mention Kajau. You must be aware that he fooled all the experts, having simply churned out diary after diary, sixty volumes in total. According to Wikipedia: "He began working to a schedule of producing three diaries a month. He later stated that he managed to produce one of the volumes in three hours; on a separate occasion he wrote three diaries in three days." If he could fool the experts then surely so could Barrett. Some might even say he has!
__________________
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 02:30 PM.


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