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 Abby Normal 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by GUT 3 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 4 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by Abby Normal 5 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 5 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by MrBarnett 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (29 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (15 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack the Poet - (2 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Jack the Poet - (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
  #421  
Old 08-21-2017, 03:13 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,655
Default

Perhaps Maybrick was a Special K cereal killer.

Nice to have you back, RJ.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 08-21-2017, 03:32 AM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Perhaps Maybrick was a Special K cereal killer.

Nice to have you back, RJ.
Can't see that myself Robert, he wasn't what you would call a regular guy.

Last edited by Observer : 08-21-2017 at 03:39 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 08-21-2017, 03:58 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,655
Default

I can't speak as to his bowel movements, Observer, but other people's experienced exceptional movement.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 08-21-2017, 03:59 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Of course, if you turn the letter K ninety degrees to the left, it looks like an underscored V. Evidently, the writer is underlining the importance of the inverted "V"s on Eddowes' face, which - of course - make an "M" when joined together.
But the killer often tried and failed to decapitate the victims: therefore we can't truly be sure whether or not he intended to place the heads back on upside down, in which case the cuts form a W rather than an M.

W. For..... Walter?

Paging Ms Cornwell. We have the breakthrough!
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 08-23-2017, 03:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Shirley puts forward Mike's research notes as being "the most effective demolition of the 'Great Forger' theory".

If those research notes were faked or manipulated in any way, i.e. they were dated "February" when they actually reflected research carried out in March, it wholly undermines Shirley's use of those notes as a demolition of the 'Great Forger' theory.

Because it means they could equally have been faked in their entirety whereby they were not genuine research notes to discover the author of the Diary at all but research notes originally made by Mike as preparation for a forgery, subsequently converted into typed notes which appeared to show him searching for the truth.

It really isn't bleedin' difficult to understand.
It would be a physical impossibilty, given that Mike didn't know about the diary until 9th March 1992.

There is not a shred of evidence that Mike blabbed to anyone about such a diary at any time before that date. Yet from that date nobody could keep him quiet. Coincidence? Don't make me laugh.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 08-23-2017, 03:56 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Now, for the children who are posting on the forum, and have issues with typos, let's look again at what Shirley says:

"Mike had given me all his notes, re-typed and 'tidied up' by Anne".

What does "re-typed" mean in English?

It means typed again.

It's different from "typed up" which would indicated the first typing of some manuscript notes.

So what Shirley was saying (although she may of course have been confused) was that Anne had typed some notes that had already been typed up.

So what has happened to the original typed up version of the manuscript notes? Why did these notes need to be "re-typed"?

Perhaps Shirley didn't mean to use the word "re-typed" but that's what she says.

If the full version of the "re-typed" notes was actually produced and published that might at least get us somewhere but as I said some days ago it is very frustrating that this has not happened
Give it up, David, and wait to hear what the diary panel members have to say in Liverpool next month. You might actually learn something to help you build some new modern forgery theory in your mind which has a better chance than zero of being compatible with the evidence.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 08-23-2017, 04:17 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
It is, of course, very important to draw a distinction between putting a document in the bin and destroying a document.

Because the difference is.....er, the difference is.....well the difference is obvious, I mean, one is putting it in the bin and the other is destroying it.

A very important and significant distinction that needs to be made an a serious forum for adult posters.
So what is your evidence that any notes were 'destroyed' [as in shredded or burned - or screwed up and swallowed perhaps?] in the process of transferring them to a final typed-up version? Did Mike or Anne admit to doing this in so many words?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 08-23-2017, 04:41 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
It's obvious she got into a terrible muddle with her notes and her memory.
So why were you even bothering to explore Shirley's use of the word 're-typed' as if it had some deeply sinister significance in relation to Mike's research notes? Could she not have got into a similar muddle with her notes or her memory of what Mike had told her about the research document when he handed it to her in July or August 1992?

Or might she not have got into a muddle on this occasion, and might Mike have mentioned at some point that he had tried to type up his handwritten notes himself but got into 'a terrible muddle' of his own, resulting in Anne tidying up and re-typing them for Shirley?

I don't know. I wasn't there. And if your own notes and memory are in good order, you can hardly have forgotten that we are talking about two people who could manipulate the truth as it suited them and one who could get into a muddle with her notes and her memory. So you figure it out if you can.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 08-23-2017 at 04:43 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 08-23-2017, 05:44 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I love how it's possible to think that Mike's original research notes were quite innocently thrown into the wastepaper basket, not appreciating their significance (even though someone was going to all the trouble of typing them up and/or re-typing them and tidying them up) yet, at the same time, to also think that those same research notes might have been fabricated to make them appear that they reflected research going back earlier than 9th March 1992 in order to corroborate the Devereux story. Yet it doesn't seem to occur that that might have been the very reason for their destruction!

And if they were destroyed to cover up a fabrication, could that fabrication have been that they were not genuine research notes at all but notes made to look like genuine research notes?
Two completely separate issues here, yet you are trying to make one follow logically from the other.

You are talking in generalities about dishonesty as if evidence for this can only lead in the one direction - to Mike having made all his original notes prior to March 9th 1992 for the purpose of creating the diary. But it's not news that Mike was a habitual liar, nor that at least one of his lies directly concerned how and when he acquired the diary in the first place.

When we consider that he didn't even know of its existence before March 9th 1992, it becomes all too bleedin' obvious why he'd have had to lie about where and when he got it, and the rest follows naturally from his original summer of '91 story. His first research notes needn't have been dated at all, but he'd have wanted Doreen and co to think he'd been hard at it ever since Devereux was meant to have given it to him, telling him to "do something with it" but refusing to answer any of his nagging questions.

"What were you doing with it all that time, Mike, if it's not a rude question. This first research note has '10/3/92' scribbled on it."

"Oh I was just sitting there for months on end dumbstruck. Couldn't even be arsed to try and work out the identity of Jack the Ripper."

"Yeah, right."

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 08-23-2017, 06:14 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
So let's get this straight.

Mike receives the Diary on 9th March 1992 and, bang!, he is on it with the research at the library (perhaps just after ordering that Victorian diary with blank pages) so when he later meets Shirley in London he is able to present her with the results of this research which shows him innocently trying to find out if it was fake or genuine.
'Later' as in at least four, if not five months later, yes, and not in London but in Liverpool, not that that should make any difference. But since you have no idea how many notes Mike made independently of Shirley's, nor how many pages they ran to, and this lack of knowledge makes you 'very frustrated', I'm not sure why you think those four or five months of making notes and typing them up can be summed up as a 'bang!'

Are you conceding that Mike would have needed a lot more than five months to research the Maybricks and the ripper, gather up all the sources required and then use them to create the diary text? That would surely have taken considerably more time and effort than to research the same text lovingly created by someone else. And yet nobody has ever come forward to say they saw Mike hard at it at any time before March 9th 1992, either while he was meant to be doing the latter or the former. Was he wearing a cloak of invisibility? Melvin Harris would have got a stiffy at the thought. [I know, how infantile.]

Quote:
Any notes showing a starting point that this was James Maybrick's Diary must have been quietly destroyed to demonstrate Mike's ignorance of where the document came from. They were then not included in the "re-typed" and "tidied up" version.
You reckon? Dream on.

You'll just have to remain very frustrated, David. But maybe that comes of spending far too much time here and away from some very useful porn sites which could better feed your imagination to a more satisfying degree.

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 11:18 PM.


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