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:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Sam Flynn 32 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by rjpalmer 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Hunter 2 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (13 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (9 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - (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
  #501  
Old 08-26-2017, 11:12 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

I didn't know that there was anyone else involved? I can't think of why anyone else would put it there? Anyone, on discovering the diary, who wished to use it against Maybrick or his family would have removed it from the house. Anyone wishing to protect Maybrick or his family would surely have destroyed it?
There may be other explanations but I can't really think of any at the moment.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 08-26-2017, 01:26 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I didn't know that there was anyone else involved? I can't think of why anyone else would put it there? Anyone, on discovering the diary, who wished to use it against Maybrick or his family would have removed it from the house. Anyone wishing to protect Maybrick or his family would surely have destroyed it?
There may be other explanations but I can't really think of any at the moment.
I think it might be a house brownie, they're known to be very mischievous.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 08-26-2017, 01:35 PM
Purkis Purkis is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
One point of mystery that sticks in my mind a little is how Maybrick, with declining health and spending a considerable amount of time bedridden and incapacitated, managed to get the diary under the floorboards without his wife, brothers or servants knowing? Lifting carpet, crowbarring up floorboards, nailing them back down etc?
Maybe someone broke in while he was out buying fags or at the doctors and planted it under the floorboards (without his wife, brothers or servants knowing).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 08-27-2017, 05:37 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

It occurs to me that when I said earlier in this thread, in reference to Dr Baxendale, that "the first document expert to examine the Diary said it's a fake and modern", some people might challenge this on the basis that the Diary had been examined by an expert prior to this.

For after all, did not Robert Anthony Hilton Smith, Assistant Keeper at the Department of Manuscripts at the British Library, not look at the Diary with his eyes? Did he not perceive the Diary? So did he not thereby visually examine the Diary?

Well no because he said, as recorded by Shirley Harrison, 'It looks authentic. But you'll have to take it to a document examiner.'

So he was saying that while it looked authentic, from merely looking at it (just like the Hitler Diaries no doubt looked authentic), he did not actually know if it was authentic or not and the Diary needed to be examined by a document examiner, of which he was not one.

For while he was undoubtedly an expert in reading, analysing, acquiring and collating old manuscripts, he was not an expert in examining them for authenticity.

In her 1993 book, Shirley Harrison mentions elderly manuscript historians who "peered" at the Diary through magnifying glasses but she does not mention any of them, including Smith, actually examining the Diary.

Regarding Smith's comment that it looked authentic, I note that Richard Whittington-Egan describes this verdict as "Not satisfactory. Not unsatisfactory, Indecisive.” and refers to Smith's "fence-sitting view."

Harrison also mentions a bookseller called Brian Lake who also looked at the diary and gave a verdict described by Whittington-Egan as "Inconclusive" but a bookseller who sells antiquarian books is hardly an expert in old manuscripts so his views don't count for anything anyway.

So when Harrison goes on to say that "The first step was to establish, as clearly as possible, that the diary was indeed Victorian and that the words had been written more than 100 years ago" she then goes on to say that "For this I turned to Dr David Baxendale".

Ooops, no she doesn't, she says: "For this I turned to Dr Nicholas Eastaugh" which was actually the second step but no need to confuse her readers with accuracy (even though she wasn't allowed to mention Baxendale's name one wonders if she needed to write the story in quite that way).

Anyway, she says: "Dr Eastaugh examined the journal at his studio in Teddington, south-west London." She doesn't say that he "forensically examined" the journal because frankly that would have been to state the bleedin' obvious.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 08-27-2017, 05:44 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Dr Baxendale, an experienced and well respected document examiner, found, from a simple solubility test, that the ink was freely soluble which it should not have been in the summer of 1992 for a Diary written in the nineteenth century.

Happily, though, we can ignore his expert view because he wasn't aware of the history of nigrosine even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with solubility and even though this, and any other of his findings in dispute, cannot have affected the result of his solubility test.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 08-30-2017, 05:40 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
I want to make this perfectly clear, as David has brought it up and I think it very important to the subject, that I am NOT sexually frustrated, at least at this point in time, and any frustration that I have exhibited in this thread in no way, shape or form has any thing to do with sexual frustration, nor with the Rolling Stones classic hit of 1965 (I Can't Get NO) Satisfaction. Quite the opposite in fact-I am VERY sexually satisfied. In fact, I cant keep my wife's hands off me! Bless her heart.

I think this is a very important point that everyone involved in this thread needs to come clean where they stand on this issue, INCLUDING the "Diary Team". Also, It would be very helpful if everyone gives there specific reasons why they are or are not (please include graphic details).

Please also include whether you like the Rolling Stones classic hit of 1965 (I Can't Get NO) Satisfaction and if you think lead singer Mick Jagger really meant it, or was just kidding. (he must have just been being sarcastic right? I mean, a big rock star like that? He must have been getting more ass than a toilet seat, right??)

No harm was intended to anyone in this thread who actually is or is not sexually frustrated or to Mick Jagger and apologies to anyone who is offended by this post, including the "Diary Team".

I look forward to the responses and Happy Friday.
Love it, Abby.

I'm glad you noticed it was David who brought up the subject of 'sexual' frustration on a diary thread.

I was shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 08-30-2017, 05:51 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c.d. View Post
Hello Caz,

To what exactly does the "one" refer to in that sentence? Numerous ex husband's or expressions? Not quite clear.

c.d.
I worded that really badly, c.d. I meant it was one of the funny expressions my former mother-in-law used. I didn't mean it was my ex husband's mother-in-law as that would have been my Mum. And she thought even Les Dawson was too lewd for the telly. Sadly they both died on the same day so I now imagine her putting up with Les's mother-in-law jokes for eternity.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:03 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
...the kind of frustration I am actually referring to is that of the researcher who is not allowed to see all the available documentation that might assist in forming a conclusion about a certain matter. I trust that clarifies the issue for anyone who might be in any doubt.
Not really, David. You imply here that your frustration is on account of not being 'allowed to see' Mike's research notes. Yet you say in a later post that you have no intention of contacting Keith Skinner about this, so surely you can see why it would be grossly unfair if you haven't even given him the chance to say yay or nay?

As it so happens, Keith emailed me only the other day to say he has read your recent posts here and has 'absolutely no objection' to you being sent the notes by me so you can put them up on the casebook 'for all to see and evaluate'. Keith agrees that the quickest and easiest way to set this in motion would be for me to pop a photocopy in the post to you, if you would kindly supply a contact address [via private message is fine - I shall look out for it]. As you keep saying how essential it is for everyone to see these notes in full, you are naturally the best - possibly the only person to be trusted with them. They run to seventeen A4 pages.

Keith also writes: 'In particular I would want to highlight that note on the front page about Transferring all my notes since August 1991 as it is one of the points I'm going to be bringing out at the Liverpool conference because it has to be weighed against the March 9th 1992 coincidence.' He describes this as 'the extraordinary coincidence of Mike deciding to telephone Doreen (using a false surname) on the day the floorboards were lifted in James Maybrick's bedroom.'

David, you will already know about this note on the front page from previous correspondence you had with Keith, although I assume you were respecting confidences, just as I have always done unless or until I get the go-ahead to share someone else's information publicly. We are not so very different, you and I, in that respect at least. Keith says it would be 'disappointing' if you thought the research notes were being deliberately suppressed. So it seems you could have asked him yourself, as I suggested ages ago [a week seems a long time in diary world], and cut out the middle woman entirely. He doesn't bite.

Here is Keith again:

'Reference could also be made to my taped interview with Mike Barrett in Liverpool Library on April 14th 1994 (pp.84-85) of Inside Story. I listened to it again the other day and reminded myself that I had only received the research notes on April 12th 1994. On the tape I specifically asked Mike whether, by any chance, he had kept his original notes and could he explain the background to his research and the word processor?'

[On checking my time line I can confirm that a receipt for a word processor purchased from Dixons and dated 3rd April 1986 was faxed to Keith from Shirley Harrison on 22nd February 1995.]

Keith writes:

'As I recall, it was purchased second hand with money given to Mike and Anne by Anne's father? Mike's story was that he made so many handwritten notes which were strewn all over the house much to Anne's annoyance when she came home from work and also that his handwriting was very bad. So it was decided to put everything on to a word processor – Anne showing Mike how to use it – but as his spelling wasn't good, Anne tidied this up. Mike said he threw all his handwritten notes away.'

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 08-30-2017 at 06:09 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 08-30-2017, 10:10 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

It occurs to me that I might have unwittingly disappointed Keith Skinner…but then again Keith is a Chelsea fan so is very used to disappointment and will, I am sure, get over it.... just like he will, by now, have got over the cup final defeat, charity shield defeat, defeat to Burnley etc. etc.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 08-30-2017, 10:19 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Another thing that occurs to me is that if Keith received the research notes on 12th April 1994, which had been typed by Mike from his handwritten notes, with spellings only corrected, in a tidying up process, by Anne (who, thus, neither typed nor re-typed nor collated them), how did Shirley Harrison's information and input get into them?

I note that Shirley Harrison says in her 2003 book:

"In 1992 Michael had given me all his notes, re-typed and 'tidied up' by Anne from his researches."

Is Keith, I wonder, talking about the same set of notes that Shirley was given by Mike in 1992 or a different set which Shirley had created in the intervening two years?
__________________
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 12:27 PM.


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