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: Our Charles Cross - by Sam Flynn 18 minutes ago.
Ripperologist: Ripperologist 161 April/May 2018 - by Ginger 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by GUT 8 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by GUT 8 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by packers stem 8 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by MrBarnett 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (16 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (6 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: What EAR/ONS teaches us about JtR - (2 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
  #161  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:43 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
However, David makes a very good point when he draws attention to the "coincidence" of Mike making strenuous efforts to acquire a Victorian dairy , with very specific specifications, just prior to the diary being released into the public domain.
Hi John,

I just wondered where you got the idea that Mike made 'strenuous efforts' to get hold of the tiny 1891 diary, which was sent to him at the end of March 1992, as a result of what seems to have been a single telephone enquiry on his part?

Also, Mike's 'very specific' specifications failed to include any page size requirement and allowed for the requested diary to have been for any year from 1880 to 1890. I wonder if David has calculated the chances of such an enquiry producing anything that would have proved suitable for the text of 'the' diary as we know it?

Just suppose Mike saw the 1889 date on the last handwritten page of 'the' diary, and simply wanted to find out how easy it would have been for some practical joker to get hold of an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s. Would you say the actual wording of the advert would then sound just about right for that brief?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 02-19-2018, 11:30 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi John,

I just wondered where you got the idea that Mike made 'strenuous efforts' to get hold of the tiny 1891 diary, which was sent to him at the end of March 1992, as a result of what seems to have been a single telephone enquiry on his part?

Also, Mike's 'very specific' specifications failed to include any page size requirement and allowed for the requested diary to have been for any year from 1880 to 1890. I wonder if David has calculated the chances of such an enquiry producing anything that would have proved suitable for the text of 'the' diary as we know it?

Just suppose Mike saw the 1889 date on the last handwritten page of 'the' diary, and simply wanted to find out how easy it would have been for some practical joker to get hold of an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s. Would you say the actual wording of the advert would then sound just about right for that brief?

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

Well, perhaps on reflection, I should have used a more apt adjective than "strenuous". I don't know, maybe Mike's love of the melodramatic is becoming infectious!

Nonetheless, I think the advert was fairly specific in its requirements. For instance, the diary had to date from 1880-1890, and therefore not just simply a Victorian diary, which would have covered the period 1837-1901. Additionally, it had to have a minimum of 20 blank pages, which is consistent with someone planing a hoax (I'm not sure what else it's consistent with).

Why would Mike want to obtain an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s for purposes of a practical joke? In other words, exactly what practical joke was he intending to play?

Last edited by John G : 02-19-2018 at 11:35 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 02-19-2018, 11:36 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,645
Default

For me it boils down to this.

The diary purports to have been written in the 1880's by James Maybrick who chose to use, not an 1888 diary, but a scrap-book from that period with some pages torn out.

Why did the author use a scrapbook instead of an 1888 diary?

Likely (IMHO) reason: he couldn't get hold of an 1888 diary.

Availability, in 1888, of an unused 1888 diary? A doddle.

Availability, at a later date, of an unused 1888 diary? Problematic if not almost impossible.

My conclusion: The diary was not written in the late 1880's and therefore not written by James Maybrick. If it wasn't written by James Maybrick it is, de facto, a forgery and it's authorship is academic.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 02-19-2018, 01:03 PM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
For me it boils down to this.

The diary purports to have been written in the 1880's by James Maybrick who chose to use, not an 1888 diary, but a scrap-book from that period with some pages torn out.

Why did the author use a scrapbook instead of an 1888 diary?

Likely (IMHO) reason: he couldn't get hold of an 1888 diary.

Availability, in 1888, of an unused 1888 diary? A doddle.

Availability, at a later date, of an unused 1888 diary? Problematic if not almost impossible.

My conclusion: The diary was not written in the late 1880's and therefore not written by James Maybrick. If it wasn't written by James Maybrick it is, de facto, a forgery and it's authorship is academic.
I think you've summed up the sensible position Bridewell. All the diary fans can come up with in response is that Mike Barrett was too stupid to fabricate the diary. What a pathetic response. A published journalist and a known bullshiter not being able to fabricate quite a simplistic document. Come off it. Even if Mike didn't solely fabricate the diary so what it wouldn't have taken a genius to assist him.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 02-19-2018, 02:36 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
For me it boils down to this.

The diary purports to have been written in the 1880's by James Maybrick who chose to use, not an 1888 diary, but a scrap-book from that period with some pages torn out.

Why did the author use a scrapbook instead of an 1888 diary?

Likely (IMHO) reason: he couldn't get hold of an 1888 diary.

Availability, in 1888, of an unused 1888 diary? A doddle.

Availability, at a later date, of an unused 1888 diary? Problematic if not almost impossible.

My conclusion: The diary was not written in the late 1880's and therefore not written by James Maybrick. If it wasn't written by James Maybrick it is, de facto, a forgery and it's authorship is academic.
Hi Bridewell
yup and another take on it:

The author states that he wanted it to be found and be known that he James Maybrick was the ripper.

therefor, not only would he not disguise/alter his handwriting, he wouldn't hide it. Hence Maybrick did not write it. (its not his handwriting).

so were left with possibility of old forgery. An old forger also would not have hid it. Nor used the phrase one off instance, or tin box empty etc. hence not an old forger.

and neither as you say would have used a photo album.

and ZERO evidence it came out of Battlecrease.

so were left with modern forgery. who was the modern forger?
The provenance starts and ends with MB and his wife.

MB attempted to obtain a Victorian diary.

the lies and changing stories exemplify he/they have zero credibility.

MB forged it probably with the help of his wife.

why its still being defended or argued that there is still some question about its origin is simply remarkable.
__________________
"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
  #166  
Old 02-19-2018, 02:59 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
why its still being defended or argued that there is still some question about its origin is simply remarkable.
It's not complicated. The logic you and Bridewell employ is deeply flawed.

You can't dismiss the journal on the grounds that you more or less don't like the look of it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 02-19-2018, 03:15 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Then we have Billy Graham's extraordinary claim that the diary had been in his family for over a century, apparently pilfered from Battlecrease, but during that entire period nobody bothers to sell it or even read it.

Oh, and if that isn't extraordinary enough, he then claimed to be Florence Maybrick's grandson!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:18 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
It's not complicated. The logic you and Bridewell employ is deeply flawed.

You can't dismiss the journal on the grounds that you more or less don't like the look of it.
HI Icon

Quote:
It's not complicated.
no. its not.

Quote:
The logic you and Bridewell employ is deeply flawed.
see above

Quote:
You can't dismiss the journal on the grounds that you more or less don't like the look of it
I dismiss it because all the evidence points to it being a modern forgery by MB and his wife.

you seem to embrace its authenticity on blind faith, however.
__________________
"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
  #169  
Old 02-20-2018, 05:10 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Caz,

Well, perhaps on reflection, I should have used a more apt adjective than "strenuous". I don't know, maybe Mike's love of the melodramatic is becoming infectious!

Nonetheless, I think the advert was fairly specific in its requirements. For instance, the diary had to date from 1880-1890, and therefore not just simply a Victorian diary, which would have covered the period 1837-1901. Additionally, it had to have a minimum of 20 blank pages, which is consistent with someone planing a hoax (I'm not sure what else it's consistent with).

Why would Mike want to obtain an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s for purposes of a practical joke? In other words, exactly what practical joke was he intending to play?
Ah, I'm sorry, John, I didn't make myself clear. Mike claimed to be as sceptical as anyone else would be, on first being shown this old book signed "Jack the Ripper". Who would believe it in a million years? Was someone pulling his leg? Was Doreen going to say: "You've been had", as soon as she set eyes on it? Was there any way to find out how easily anyone in 1992 [not Mike, but this potential leg puller] could have found a diary from the right period - the 1880s - with enough blank pages to play such a prank? Yes there was. Mike enquired and found it was not so easy when he was sent a tiny example for the year 1891, which nobody could have used to pull his leg. Meanwhile, Doreen sounded genuinely interested so Mike took a punt and took his newly acquired Jack the Ripper diary to London, where everyone he saw reacted positively and didn't automatically think this was some kind of joke that had been played on Mike.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-20-2018, 05:16 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,313
Default

I may be showing my age, but so far in this discussion nobody's mentioned Steve Powell!!!

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
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 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.