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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (66 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (1 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (1 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Bucks Row Project - (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
  #1191  
Old 09-15-2017, 09:37 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 933
Default

And this is why I previously stated that I regretted joining a diary thread! I'm apperently incapable of logic or common sense or I'm wilfully ignoring facts. No matter how reasonable you try to be on here it's still I case of being an idiot for disagreeing!
'It's not difficult Herlock, I've already explained this in full.' That's called arrogance. 'I've explained it so why don't you just accept it because I can't possibly be wrong.' Your much vaunted 'critical thinking,' amounts to, a Victorian pub couldn't possibly have been known by some, or even one, by an alternate name. That it's not even mildly surprising that a forger would put a totally made-up pub into a diary (or even the ludicrous suggestion that he did it accidentally [that's some slip of the pen]) Being asked to accept coincidences is not 'weird.' Strangely enough i thought that it was only conspiracy theorists that didn't accept the existance of coincidences. You may be unaware Mike but coincidences are all around us. We are subject to them all the time. What would be weird would be if there were no coincidences. If something is a coincidence, so what? It's not proof of a lie, even if there are 10 of them.
You called I believe for response and debate. That's not what you are looking for. What you are looking for is to try and assert some kind of supreriority. The comfort of being in the 'group with the most votes.'
I'll lose no sleep about not returning to this post. I'll leave you to your certainty. To a place where no one will contradict you. Above all I'll allow you the time to check the dictionary for the differing definititions of the words 'improbable or implausible' and the word 'impossible!' as you clearly have difficulty distinguishing between the two.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1192  
Old 09-15-2017, 09:42 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
And this is why I previously stated that I regretted joining a diary thread! I'm apperently incapable of logic or common sense or I'm wilfully ignoring facts. No matter how reasonable you try to be on here it's still I case of being an idiot for disagreeing!
'It's not difficult Herlock, I've already explained this in full.' That's called arrogance. 'I've explained it so why don't you just accept it because I can't possibly be wrong.' Your much vaunted 'critical thinking,' amounts to, a Victorian pub couldn't possibly have been known by some, or even one, by an alternate name. That it's not even mildly surprising that a forger would put a totally made-up pub into a diary (or even the ludicrous suggestion that he did it accidentally [that's some slip of the pen]) Being asked to accept coincidences is not 'weird.' Strangely enough i thought that it was only conspiracy theorists that didn't accept the existance of coincidences. You may be unaware Mike but coincidences are all around us. We are subject to them all the time. What would be weird would be if there were no coincidences. If something is a coincidence, so what? It's not proof of a lie, even if there are 10 of them.
You called I believe for response and debate. That's not what you are looking for. What you are looking for is to try and assert some kind of supreriority. The comfort of being in the 'group with the most votes.'
I'll lose no sleep about not returning to this post. I'll leave you to your certainty. To a place where no one will contradict you. Above all I'll allow you the time to check the dictionary for the differing definititions of the words 'improbable or implausible' and the word 'impossible!' as you clearly have difficulty distinguishing between the two.
Herlock, I'm not talking about you specifically, and I don't think you're at all illogical.

You're at least making a good attempt to explain those inconsistencies and coincidences, which others are doing everything to avoid. When I say "others" I'm talking about the supporters. I do not consider you as a supporter, and I've tried to make that clear as day, if I haven't, then I apologize.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind the attempts at explaining the coincidences, not because they aren't reasoned enough, but that they discount the obvious, which I've tried to explain.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1193  
Old 09-15-2017, 09:47 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
And finally, Maybrick also coincidentally coined a phrase that wasn't known in that context at the time.
Three or four such phrases, in fact.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1194  
Old 09-15-2017, 09:50 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
Herlock, I'm not talking about you specifically, and I don't think you're at all illogical.

You're at least making a good attempt to explain those inconsistencies and coincidences, which others are doing everything to avoid. When I say "others" I'm talking about the supporters. I do not consider you as a supporter, and I've tried to make that clear as day, if I haven't, then I apologize.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind the attempts at explaining the coincidences, not because they aren't reasoned enough, but that they discount the obvious, which I've tried to explain.




Ok Mike, perhaps when it comes to the diary I get a little more defensive than with other topics because when I try the old Devils Advocate bit I often get to feel like a Holocaust Denier. So.... no hard feelings

I just like looking at the other side and seeing if an arguement can be made. I genuinely dont think that some of the explainations aren't feasible. You disagree. No problems.

But as Holmes said in The Boscombe Valley Mystery.

"There's nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact."
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1195  
Old 09-15-2017, 09:52 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Three or four such phrases, in fact.
Agreed, and this is the entire point regarding coincidence.

When you have one, it's permissible, when you have two, it's a bit odd, when there's three...well, red flags are waving, but to have four?

When you have a suspect item/document that is already doubtful, with an iffy story, dodgy provenance, examples of lying and inconsistencies in the sources, then to find a handful of striking coincidences contained within, it should make you instantly sceptical.

If people are continually making allowances for those issues, all the while giving credence to odd and doubtful details such as the FM on the wall, it shows you that they're not playing with a full deck of cards and are basically in love with the fiction.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1196  
Old 09-15-2017, 09:58 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
[/b]


Ok Mike, perhaps when it comes to the diary I get a little more defensive than with other topics because when I try the old Devils Advocate bit I often get to feel like a Holocaust Denier. So.... no hard feelings

I just like looking at the other side and seeing if an arguement can be made. I genuinely dont think that some of the explainations aren't feasible. You disagree. No problems.

But as Holmes said in The Boscombe Valley Mystery.

"There's nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact."
Tbf, I genuinely see no issues with anyone playing devil's advocate, I think that's what we need to some degree, to get both sides and entertain possible and potentially conflicting theories. Somewhere in between lies the truth.

It's just that with this diary, there's a bit too much in the way of very odd problems that are not easily cast aside. I don't think anyone reasoning against those coincidences is illogical, they're in fact acting with logic, but it's just that the reasoning itself is short of the full mark.

For example, if anyone could show me that a pub known as the Poste House was in existence, I'd happily allow that to be a permissible coincidence. I can't just accept that some obscure pub may have been known by that name, there has to be evidence, because we already have evidence that there is a pub by that name, and it's not far from James's offices in town. This is why evidence and detail is important. Without it, we're guessing, and it's not the best way to go about solving anything.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1197  
Old 09-15-2017, 10:09 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 933
Default

The biggest problem as far as I can see Mike are the lies that have been told about its origins. If it had been stated from the start, for eg, that it came from Battlecrease then immediate investigations could have been done into the provenance. No we have to look back and assess timelines and who did what and when. Maybe more evidence will emerge? I have no problem with anyone being convinced it's a hoax.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1198  
Old 09-15-2017, 10:20 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
The biggest problem as far as I can see Mike are the lies that have been told about its origins. If it had been stated from the start, for eg, that it came from Battlecrease then immediate investigations could have been done into the provenance. No we have to look back and assess timelines and who did what and when. Maybe more evidence will emerge? I have no problem with anyone being convinced it's a hoax.
That's another great point that goes in favour of the hoax claim. When you have something that is genuine, it normally isn't necessary to create more than one version of how it came to be in your possession. Now, if the diary had been outright stolen, and the person who previously owned it was aware it had been stolen, then you'd expect dodgy stories to arise, but in this case, the book wasn't stolen, because it didn't technically belong to anyone, other than maybe Paul Dodd, as he owned the house, but can it be guaranteed that the book genuinely did come from the house?

Time-sheets aren't enough, unless they state that the boards were lifted on that date, but even then that wouldn't prove the book had come from under those boards.

AFAIK, the former bedroom of Maybrick in 1992 was Dodd's sitting-room. So, there'd need to be actual evidence of the boards having been lifted in that room, but then there'd need to be some actual evidence that the book indeed came from there at all, of which there seems to be nothing except conflicting stories from the men involved.

There's just too many lies at this point to be certain, and when you have muddy water, it's not easy to clear it and see through.

The timeline, as I tried to explain to Caz, does not add up like she claims.

* There'd have to have been correspondence between the men and the university to arrange a meeting before setting off.

* Was this in the late afternoon after the shift had finished?

* It isn't possible to go from Aigburth into town at rush-hour in less than 30 minutes.

* They get to the university, meet said individual, talk, leave.

* Do they go back to the office to clock-off/return gear?

* Do they then go home or straight to the Saddle? How far is the office from the Saddle? The Saddle is in Anfield, about 10-15 minutes beyond town.

* Do they instantly meet Mike there and pass him the book?

* What time is left for Mike to have contacted a publisher during office-hours?

It is very very problematic, and that's just the timeline of the account, lol.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1199  
Old 09-15-2017, 10:37 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

I've just been reading the press reports again. Now I might have misunderstood, but my understanding is that the new, and exciting evidence amounts to this: Bruce Robinson checked the historic timesheets of Portus and Rhodes Ltd and discovered that three electricians- Arthur Rigby, James Coufopoulos and Eddie Lyons, one of whom told Paul Feldman that they would publicly admit to removing the diary in return for cash-where carrying out renovations at Battlecrease House on the same day that Mike Barrett contacted a literary agent to reveal he had in his possession "Jack The Ripper's Diary."

Now, the obvious inference is that this creates a connection between the discovery of the diary-allegedly by the electricians-and Mike Barrett. This connection is reinforced by the fact that Lyons was supposedly a regular at The Saddle Inn, Mike Barrett's local, although he initially denied this when spoken to by Paul Feldman a number of years ago.

Now unless I'm missing something how on earth does the scenario which is being hinted at make any sense? Thus, presumably what's being suggested is that one of the electricians met Barrett in The Saddle and offered him the diary., and he encouraged contacted the literary agent. However, considering how they subsequently became fixated on a financial reward, why would they just hand it over for free?

And there's a bigger problem. When exactly did the pub meeting take place? If it was in the evening, then presumably Barrett wouldn't have had sufficient time to contact the agent-and where did he get the telephone number from anyway?

If the electrician was having a liquid pub lunch at The Saddle- during which he met Barrett, who may, presumably, have been inebriated at the time (it was a pub, after all)-then how is Barrett supposed to have responded?

Okay, he takes a quick look at the document, whilst possibly drunk, thinks to himself, "Wow, this is obviously the diary of Jack the Ripper, I'd better contact a literary agent without delay?" Now quite apart from the obvious question-where did he get the literary agent's number from-what sane person thinks like that? It's completely absurd.

Moreover, this scenario doesn't even gel with what the electrician contact, who claimed to have been there when the diary was discovered, told Feldman. According to him he drove to Liverpool University with his two colleagues in an effort to get the document authenticated. However, if that was the case how did it end up with Barrett on the same day it was discovered? If the journey to Liverpool took place at a later date, then why did they subsequently give Barrett the diary? Particularly as they considered it to be of such importance that they travelled to Liverpool University to get it authenticated, and the electrician who drank at The Saddle expected to be remunerated in return for his "confession."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1200  
Old 09-15-2017, 10:47 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Now, the obvious inference is that this creates a connection between the discovery of the diary-allegedly by the electricians-and Mike Barrett. This connection is reinforced by the fact that Lyons was supposedly a regular at The Saddle Inn, Mike Barrett's local, although he initially denied this when spoken to by Paul Feldman a number of years ago.

Now unless I'm missing something how on earth does the scenario which is being hinted at make any sense? Thus, presumably what's being suggested is that one of the electricians met Barrett in The Saddle and offered him the diary., and he encouraged contacted the literary agent. However, considering how they subsequently became fixated on a financial reward, why would they just hand it over for free?

And there's a bigger problem. When exactly did the pub meeting take place? If it was in the evening, then presumably Barrett wouldn't have had sufficient time to contact the agent-and where did he get the telephone number from anyway?

If the electrician was having a liquid pub lunch at The Saddle- during which he met Barrett, who may, presumably, have been inebriated at the time (it was a pub, after all)-then how is Barrett supposed to have responded?

Okay, he takes a quick look at the document, whilst possibly drunk, thinks to himself, "Wow, this is obviously the diary of Jack the Ripper, I'd better contact a literary agent without delay?" Now quite apart from the obvious question-where did he get the literary agent's number from-what sane person thinks like that? It's completely absurd.

Moreover, this scenario doesn't even gel with what the electrician contact, who claimed to have been there when the diary was discovered, told Feldman. According to him he drove to Liverpool University with his two colleagues in an effort to get the document authenticated. However, if that was the case how did it end up with Barrett on the same day it was discovered? If the journey to Liverpool took place at a later date, then why did they subsequently give Barrett the diary? Particularly as they considered it to be of such importance that they travelled to Liverpool University to get it authenticated, and the electrician who drank at The Saddle expected to be remunerated in return for his "confession."
It is very very doubtful that any of the electricians would've met Mike at lunch, because Aigburth is nowhere near to Anfield, where the Saddle is. It's a good drive into town, then towards Anfield, which is about 10+ minutes outside of the city-center. If they were to have a drink during the shift, it'd have to have been at the Kingsman, over the road from the cricket club.

Surely the electricians would've finished the job and gone back to the company office, to return gear and time-sheets and clock-off, that's if they didn't have another job to go to after that one.

I don't see how they randomly ring the university, arrange a meeting, finish work, travel from Aigburth to town, meet with the university, then go where? Work again? Home? The Saddle? Do they meet Mike right away?

There's simply not enough time for all of this and for Mike to contact a publisher in London all during working business hours.
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 07:14 PM.


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