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:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by DirectorDave 1 minute ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Observer 1 hour and 3 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Miller's Court Demolition Photo - by DJA 1 hour and 22 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Observer 2 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Miller's Court Demolition Photo - by DJA 2 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Miller's Court Demolition Photo - by richardh 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Scene of the Crimes: Miller's Court Demolition Photo - (11 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: Letter dated 14th October 1896. - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: ORIGINAL doors in Miller's court - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: PC Richard Pearce and the candle in the window...... - (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
  #431  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:46 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But the date of 17th July 1992 doesn't make any sense does it? Why would Eddie, on 17th July 1992 (having long since passed the Diary on to Mike Barrett), have blurted out to Rawes, completely out of the blue, that he had found something important in Battlecrease over four months earlier? Do you have any thoughts about that?
I can't speak for JJ, but I have. If Rawes was misremembering some other conversation from some other occasion, the date of 17th July 1992 nevertheless fits perfectly with Eddie and Graham Rhodes being in the house working that day, while Rigby was assigned to the job at Halewood police station, to be joined by Rawes when he'd picked up the van from Battlecrease. If nothing else, he gives great context.

The timing would also fit very neatly with Eddie hearing [from Mike?] that the diary he had found under the floorboards back in March was considered so important by the people in London that authors, publishers and scientists were all getting involved. Rawes wouldn't have known about any of this in July 1992, and I'm not sure Feldman would have known, or cared much, about such details in Spring/Summer 1993. If Rawes got the information from Shirley's book after it came out on October 4th, 1993, giving rise to a false memory, which he believed was significant enough to tell the police later that same month, he was not only very quick off the mark, but he presumably missed the detail on page 7 that Shirley first saw 'the' diary in London in the Spring of 1992, and it was therefore not something Eddie could only just have found in Liverpool in the July.

Why couldn't Rawes have been telling it just as it happened, hearing it as "I've found a diary", not "I found a diary", because he didn't have the faintest idea in 1992, or when talking to the police in 1993, when Eddie might have found this diary; when 'the' diary was first known to exist; or whether they could have been one and the same?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-15-2018 at 08:58 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:05 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Let's recap on the Paul Dodd point.

It was stated (#234): "We know Rigby later went to see Paul Dodd, worried he might be implicated in theft, and volunteered the information that it was Bowling and Lyons who knew something about it."

My comment (#322) was: "I don't know anything of the sort".

The response to this (#327) was: "No, but Paul Dodd does - unless he was just making it up."

So I ask for the source of all this and it turns out to be from Robert Smith, page 19, as follows:

"I had also heard from another source that a very worried Rigby came to Paul Dodd's flat to deny any involvement in the removal of the diary, again trotting out exactly the same story that he had told Feldman, and implicating Bowling and Lyons as being culprits."

So the comment "No, but Paul Dodd does - unless he was just making it up" is the usual nonsense because Smith does not say in his book that his source was Paul Dodd.
No, but you are assuming, for some unknown reason, that I wouldn't have access to any of the same source materials as Robert. I don't just make stuff up, David. Paul Dodd did relate the details of this visit from Rigby. Believe it or not. I don't much care. Dismiss it as irrelevant anyway. I don't much care. I think I might just die of shock if I got any other reaction from you.

If Rigby was genuinely so worried about being accused of theft, that he was prepared to grass up two of his workmates to the owner of the house, for something he didn't actually witness them doing - finding and taking a diary which Feldman believed to be very valuable, doesn't that suggest he hadn't knowingly been involved in a scam to con Feldman? Where would that leave his involvement, if he believed Lyons and Bowling might have taken something while he was working there, and that it could have been the diary?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:25 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
It's utterly irrelevant whether the electricians had the faintest idea who Mike was or when he first told anyone about his diary or knew anything about his telephone call or precisely when the diary was thought to have been found. All they needed to know what that it was suspected that the Diary had been found (under the floorboards) at Battlecrease. Once they had this information in their heads then when they searched their memories in 1993 (or later) about the work they carried out at Battlecrease during 1992 (or earlier) they might have interpreted innocent remarks or actions by others as being connected with this supposed discovery.

It's no doubt why Vinny Dring, who appears to have found some irrelevant books in Battlecrease in 1982, thought that HE might have found the Diary.

I don't think it's a difficult point to understand. And I wasn't making a positive point. I made the point in response to claims that the stories of the electricians somehow validated the timesheet evidence. I'm saying that the coincidence revealed by the timesheet evidence is not enhanced by the pre-existing stories of the electricians.
I do understand all this, David. I was just observing that the fact remains that all the evidence so far gathered allows for the scrapbook to have come out of Battlecrease on the morning of the day the diary is first mentioned, by Mike, to the Rupert Crew literary agency, when there would have been no such guarantee if the electricians just made it all up on the strength of some floorboards being lifted at some point prior to 1993.

Rest assured that efforts will continue to be made to find just the one little scrap of information that closes down that possibility and demonstrates that it could only have been a strange coincidence.

This is the way to go, David. Try your best to disprove your own instincts about how the diary, which Mike took to London in April 1992, came into his possession.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:38 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
So I say that the line of enquiry into the APS shop conversation will be a waste of time unless it can be positively ruled out that the conversation occurred in 1993 and I am then told that it won't be a waste of time if it can be positively ruled out that the conversation occurred in 1993!!!!!!!!!! (Ten exclamation marks.)

I mean, honestly. This is why my conversation with James was such a contrast. He seems to be able to read and understand English.
But you were clearly assuming that 1993 couldn't be ruled out, and therefore implying this line of enquiry was already a waste of time.

I dispute what can or can't be ruled out, so we won't know if this line of enquiry will prove to be a waste of time until we follow it as far as we can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:16 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,287
Default

Another 24 hours in the life of the Maybrick diary and we have advanced not one jot in our knowledge. Just another batch of complete nonsense has been posted. As I said in my post on Friday, there isn't much more to say on the subject. The fact of Mike's attempted acquisition of a Victorian Diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages remains unchanged. "One off instance" still didn't exist in the nineteenth century. So I was minded not to post any further today but some things just can't go unchallenged.

A statement was made that "We know Rigby later went see Paul Dodd" . But did we know this? The source (apparently) turns out to be some private unpublished information from Paul Dodd. So "we" didn't know anything of the sort. And when I asked for the source I was directed to Robert Smith's book at page 19. This just referred to an anonymous source who was not said to be Paul Dodd himself. If Robert Smith had the information direct from Paul Dodd then this is not what he said in his book. So when I said "I know nothing of the sort" it was a perfectly correct response because the supposed information from Paul Dodd himself had never been published.

Then I'm told that in saying that, "the line of enquiry into the APS shop conversation will be a waste of time unless it can be positively ruled out that the conversation occurred in 1993", I was "clearly assuming" that it "couldn't be ruled out" (shouldn't that be "could"?) when I was doing no such thing. I was speaking English. Unless it can be ruled out that the APS shop conversation occurred in 1993 any investigation into the conversation will obviously be a waste of time.

In the meantime, were we told how it made any sense for Lyons to blurt out to Rawes in July that he had discovered (and stolen) a Diary in March? No, we certainly were not.

I'm not saying that Rawes was deliberately putting forward a false story. Only that he might well have become aware in 1993 that the Diary was supposed to have been found under the floorboards and then connected that with a vague memory of a conversation he had with Eddie in July 1992; a conversation that had nothing to do with a discovery of the diary. If he remembered a conversation with Eddie about "a diary", why did he tell James Johnston that he recalled being told by Eddie of "this book"? If Eddie told him he found a diary it's odd that he would ever refer to it as a book. If, on the other hand, Eddie told him he found a book, then his mention of it being a diary can only have been influenced by his knowledge of the Maybrick Diary. But then Robert Smith tells us that what Rawes recalls being told by Eddie was: "I found something under the floorboards...". Not a diary, not a book. Just something. It could have been anything.

Similarly I've never said that Rigby was involved in a scam. I've said that he was trying to help Feldman and was reconstructing many months later, turning a memory of something being thrown into a skip and a visit to Liverpool University into something being connected with a diary, even though no-one ever appears to have mentioned the discovery of a diary to him in 1992.

It was Paul Dodd, not me, who claimed that Feldman was the victim of a scam - and this comes from Inside Story. Dodd is also quoted as saying that there was "no substance at all to the claims made of finding the Diary at Battlecrease." So whatever conversation he had with Rigby made no impression on him whatsoever it seems.

I've already said more than once that Mike might (perfectly reasonably) have not wanted to give up 5% of his income on the basis of a false provenance so why is it continually asked why he did not agree to accept that false provenance?

Why did Eddie take out sums of money in cash from his bank? Who knows? Was it to pay off someone? Not necessarily. That's as far as we can take it.

Did Eddie try to put "the squeeze" on Mike in 1993? Not to my knowledge he didn't. And how could he do it anyway? Any claim by him to have found the diary could have been dismissed as false, just as Mike did. If he has a "royalty share" deal with Mike, how does he know how much he is due to receive? And isn't Eddie supposed to be scared of anyone knowing that he stole the diary? So doesn't Mike have as much reason to blackmail Eddie? But who knows? The story changes from day to day and motives are shifted back and forwards. James Johnston tells me that Eddie was so keen to know what he (JJ) knew about the discovery of the diary that he agreed to meet him three times. But why does Eddie care unless he is scared of exposure as being the thief? And if he's scared of exposure how did he have any real leverage over Mike?

But all these questions are pointless because we can speculate for ever. They will never get us anywhere. For every unsupported speculation I read on this forum I could easily come up with an equal and opposite unsupported speculation of my own. The facts remain what they are. Mike trying to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages. An unhistorical phrase used in the diary. A coincidence of dates.

Surely there is no more to say on this subject at the moment.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:33 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Caz:

Quote:
"A child could understand that a forgery which had taken its creator(s) considerable time, effort and research to plan, put together, compose and perfect might require a somewhat different kind of person to "do something with it" than some old book pinched from an old house and quickly offloaded."
I see little evidence that either of those descriptions fits the document we're dealing with.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 01-16-2018, 04:13 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Plenty of us go through periods of what appears to the outside world to be unproductiveness, lethargy, drift. Some snap out of it, some don't. Some find a project that energizes them, some don't. None of which is evidence that MB was too stupid or too indolent to play a role in the creation of the Diary.
Hi Henry,

Nor is any of this evidence that MB could, or did, play a role in its creation.

Quote:
And so what if he wasa regular heavy drinker before 92? I have a friend who spends half his life drunk, heavily drunk. When not at work he is in the pub or asleep. He's charming, intelligent, thoughtful, and, as it happens, a fantastic freelance writer in his spare time, and a professional journalist for a motoring magazine Mon-Fri.
I take your point - absolutely - but I was only responding to David's observation that MB only 'started drinking' after going public with the diary. I just wondered how he knew this and I suspect he doesn't, in which case it was said to give the impression that the drunken and shambolic figure who produced that 'confession' in January 1995 was nothing like the sober, competent operator he'd have been prior to April 13th, 1992, when supposedly up to his eyes in sourcing the scrapbook and persuading someone to pen someone else's prepared text into it, in readiness for his appointment in London.

The fact is, none of us can say what Mike was like, and what capabilities he had prior to that time. We do know what research he had claimed to do by the summer of 1992 and we know what kind of Victorian diary his telephone enquiry in the March produced - one that was no good to man nor beast for the purpose of creating 'the' Maybrick diary. He must have learned from that mistake pretty damned quickly and had the luck of the very devil, if, on receiving and rejecting the 1891 diary on the last Friday or Saturday of March, he was suddenly able to get his hands on the scrapbook at auction the following Tuesday.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 01-16-2018, 04:40 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Caz:

I see little evidence that either of those descriptions fits the document we're dealing with.
But even if you share the view held by others in the past, that the diary was a doddle to create, and could have been planned, researched and executed by one or two average 1990s teenagers, virtually over a wet weekend, they would presumably have been hoping the project would not founder on day one under the control of good old dependable Mike Barrett.

It seems that MB was the only one set to profit from the work done by others. And although the project didn't totally founder, and the book claiming he had discovered the identity of JtR did finally get published the following October, despite all the difficulties, he managed to screw everything up within months, with his various confessions, and could so easily have taken his little helpers down with him if he had been able to prove their involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

If that doesn't show he was a liability, I don't know what would.

The one constant in all this was his refusal to drop Eddie Lyons in it by taking advantage of a perfect provenance handed to him on a plate, courtesy of Paul Feldman, in mid-1993, when nobody knew if Shirley's book would sink or swim under the pressure of Melvin Harris and his heavy brigade.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-16-2018 at 04:44 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 01-16-2018, 04:47 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
But even if you share the view held by others in the past, that the diary was a doddle to create, and could have been planned, researched and executed by one or two average 1990s teenagers, virtually over a wet weekend
In the past, Caz? Some of us hold that view in the present
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 01-16-2018, 05:14 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Granted, you weren't asking me, but my own answer to that question, Caz, is that the coincidence of the date makes things rather uncomfortable and unconvincing for anyone not thinking MB had a hand in creating the forgery.
Really? That's funny because I'm not remotely uncomfortable or unconvinced. If we could prove beyond doubt that the diary wasn't pinched from under the floorboards on March 9th, 1992, we could all move on. But I would still need a check up from the neck up or some truly damning evidence before I would accept an alternative involving MB in the diary's creation. I didn't find his forgery claims remotely credible when I first knew of them and I don't today.

Quote:
I simply think the phonecall comes too soon for there to be any connection between the floorboards and the diary. If I were writing this as fiction, or if I wanted to believe that the diary was uncovered when the floorboards were lifted, I'd leave a day or two at least before that call gets made.
Ever heard that truth can be stranger than fiction, Henry?

If those floorboards were up before the morning tea break, the diary could have been in the Saddle - courtesy of the electrician who lived just down the road - when Mike turned up for his daily beer rations before collecting Caroline from the primary school opposite. You know, impetuous Mike, who is meant to have called a London literary agency to interest them in his fake JtR confession, even before he has enquired about the availability of Victorian diaries with blank pages. Why wouldn't the same impetuous Mike have called the same agency about an old book signed JtR, which he had just clocked, all wide-eyed but not legless, down the boozer?

Quote:
The great confirmatory coincidence seems to me genuinely to weaken the Battlecrease-provenance case. And I don't say that because I'm biased: I've said it before, if it were to be proven tomorrow that the diary came from Battlecrease, or that JM was JtR, my response would be an interested shrug - "oh, I didn't expect that, how interesting." I don't feel like part of any 'team' here, I'm just waiting for something solid and concrete that dislodges the wannabe-writer, Victorian-diary-procuring, sole demonstrable provenance, forgery-confessing Mike Barrett from prime position as creator or co-creator of the Diary.
And I wouldn't seek to dislodge you from that opinion, Henry.

Just keep testing it, as I do mine, to see if you can find anything to prove or disprove your own instincts.

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 06:30 PM.


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