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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - by RockySullivan 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (50 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (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
  #191  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:31 PM
James_J James_J is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 34
Default

Evening David,

R.e. Post #157

I've reproduced the relevant extracts from my conversations with E.L. below. To provide some context (because the recordings are over 1hr30 in length) - I was asking E.L. which colleagues he remembered working with at Battlecrease, and what work he had conducted at the house.

EL: Arthur was there, because he was the one that started all these small jobs out and about, you know.
JJ: Yes.

[Continued] (A later section of the conversation).

JJ: Can you remember any electrician with the initials ‘J.K’?
EL: [Pause]
JJ: Does that ring any bells?
EL: There was another, a younger electrician but, I can’t think of his name.


'J.K.' were the initials given to me by Pete Rigby - whose account is reproduced in my chapter. To ensure that I wasn't contaminating or influencing E.L., I did not alter those initials during the interview. Nevertheless - who was this younger electrician?

D.S. Thomas recalled the following: 'It may be of interest that at some stage a young apprentice, whose name I can’t recall was meant to have been working with them​ [Rigby & Lyons]​ at Battlecrease.’ (Colin Thomas, 15th May 2017). Clearly, this 'younger electrician's' name was proving difficult to remember...

Well - I had the following from James Coufoupoulos. 'I was quite young at the time’. JC also confirmed that he had ‘worked at Battlecrease doing ‘a rewiring job’ alongside ‘Arthur Rigby’. (James Coufopoulos, 5th October 2015). That is supported by the timesheet for 9.3.92.

So, what work did Eddie remember doing at the house? Perhaps that could give us some indication of who Eddie & DS Thomas were referring to? I made a point of asking Eddie this question during each interview, and in each case recieved a similar response.


(29.09.2015)
JJ: Ok, can you tell me what the work you did at Battlecrease House was?
EL: It was something to do with, I think it was storage heaters or something.


(17.02.16)
JJ: So first of all, could you maybe give me an overview of the work that you did at Battlecrease House?
EL: Oh yeah, God [inaudible]. Basically, it was some heaters.

[...]

JJ: Ok. I don’t know if you can remember, but what did Scotland Yard ask of you?
EL: They just asked my story.
JJ: Ok...
EL: You know, ‘what you done there’? And I said; ‘well we had the floorboards up'

[...]

EL: Yeah so, I think I was, we worked on the first floor, the ground floor and then I think there was a
cellar underneath. Now whether we were just bloody looking in the cellar, I think it was just full of
boats or canoes or something. We were looking maybe, just for ways to get cables in or something, I
don’t know. I don’t think we actually done any work in the cellar.
JJ: Ok.
EL: I think we had floorboards up, on maybe the first floor.

[...]

EL: I think we just were sent there [Battlecrease] maybe to get us out the way for an hour, a couple of hours
because they maybe didn’t have enough work, or it was one of them places you know. I think I was only there
a day or two, I can’t remember. It’s that long ago I can’t even think what, I just know it had something to do
with putting the heaters in
or something.
JJ: Ok. I think it was ‘overnight storage heaters’?
EL: Yeah could have been. Yeah, could have been.
JJ: Ok, and would that involve taking the floorboards up?
EL: I think it would have done yeah. Yeah, probably would have done.


So, by his own admission - Eddie remembered working at Battlecrease alongside Arthur Rigby & 'a younger electrician'. He also remembered that it involved 'something to do with storage heaters', which necessitated the removal of floorboards on the first floor, and running cables into the house. If we are to believe Eddie's account - there must be a corresponding timesheet.

The timesheet for 9.3.92 records that both Arthur Rigby and James Coufopoulos were tasked with installing the wire for the storage heaters on the 1st floor of the house. According to Colin Rhodes, this definetly would have necessitated the removal of floorboards on the first floor. We can also see that '15 floorboard protectors' are listed under 'materials' on the timesheet. According to Colin Rhodes - these were essentially plates that were used to protect raised floorboards. So 9.3.92 is certainly one option.

The next timesheet for Battlecrease is dated 9.6.92. This involved the installation of the storage heaters on the first floor. According to the timesheet, however, this did not require any floorboard protectors - nor did it involve Arthur Rigby or our 'younger electrician'. The two individuals on the timesheet are Graham Rhodes & Jim Bowling (Eddie's pal). Eddie had no trouble remembering their names during our conversations: - i.e. "The only one I ever kept in contact with was Jimmy Bowling, because I worked with him on another firm."

The only other timesheet where Eddie's name appears is dated the week ending 21.7.92. Arthur Rigby's name is nowhere to be seen, and the description of work conducted reads; 'Alternator LT Wiring + DB. Check Low Tests - Ground Floor'. This cannot be the work Eddie described during our interview.

So where does this leave us? If Eddie's identification of the colleagues he worked alongside at Battlecrease and his description of the work they conducted is accurate, that brings us back to the 9.3.92. So why isn't his name on the timesheet? I think Eddie provides us with the best answer;

"I think we just were sent there [Battlecrease] maybe to get us out the way for an hour, a couple of hours because they maybe didn’t have enough work, or it was one of them places you know."

Colin Rhodes painted exactly the same picture - 'We took Bowling and Lyons on for a specific contract which was in Skelmersdale, which is miles away from here [...] and they were on that particular contract for quite awhile. So, it was nearing the completion of it, then they were back here, and were available to just help out at Riversdale.'

Eddie is not recorded on the Skelmersdale timesheet on 9.3.92...so where was he?

Given the details of his own account, and the corresponding timesheets, I'm opting that Eddie was at Riversdale Road helping colleagues Arthur Rigby & James Coufopoulos install the wire needed for the storage heaters. As far as the timesheets record, this is the only day in which floorboards would have been raised in the first floor of Battlecrease House.

There you have it - my reasoning for concluding that Eddie was present at Riversdale Road on the morning of 9.3.92.

** Just to pick up on a previous question - r.e. when did Eddie start working for Portus & Rhodes:

Eddie was able to confirm with me that he started working for Portus & Rhodes in late 1991 - referencing a p60 form from January 1992. He also noted: 'And I never went out, I finished in ’92 as well.'

Best wishes, James.
__________________
Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it. Because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

Last edited by James_J : 12-06-2017 at 04:34 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:59 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Thank you James.

So in fairness when you said:

"It was Edward Lyons who remembered working with Arthur Rigby & James Coufopoulos at Battlecrease when lifting floorboards for storage heaters."

That wasn't entirely accurate because he doesn't actually remember James Coufopoulos by name, he only recalls a young electrician who you assume is Coufopoulos.

And it is unclear from the extract you have posted if he was saying that he remembered working with that young electrician while lifting floorboards for storage heaters. Thus:

"JJ: Can you remember any electrician with the initials ‘J.K’?
EL: [Pause]
JJ: Does that ring any bells?
EL: There was another, a younger electrician but, I can’t think of his name."


All you asked him is if he can remember an electrician with certain initials. When he says "There was a younger electrician", is he saying that that electrician was working with him and Arthur in Battlecrease on the same day they were all working on installing the storage heaters? Or does he just remember him as working for Portus & Rhodes? It's not clear from the Q&A.

Although you have underlined one part of an answer where he says he worked on the first floor I note that he is saying that he worked on the first floor and the ground floor and the cellar.

I have some difficulty with your logic. Although you seem to be saying that the timesheets do not reflect the reality of who was working in Battlecrease on any particular day, you rule out w/e 21st July as being when Eddie worked with Rigby because "Arthur Rigby's name is nowhere to be seen". But if the timesheets do not accurately record who was working at Battlecrease, both Rigby and Coufopolous could have been working in Battlecrease during week ending 21st July couldn't they? And if that is the case then is it possible that this was the week that Eddie found something which he threw into a skip (as recalled by Rigby)?

And Lyons, Rigby, Coupofoulos, Rhodes and Bowling could all have been in Battlecrease on 9 June 1992 when the timesheets supposedly show the night storage heater being installed in the first floor flat (although this particular timesheet remains unpublished)? Can I ask how you know what is in the 9 June 1992 timesheet? Have you seen it? I thought you had only seen what was in Robert Smith's book or have I got that wrong?

Can I ask this. Have you transcribed the entire interview or interviews with Eddie? If so, can you post the whole thing? If not, are you planning to do so?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk

Last edited by David Orsam : 12-06-2017 at 05:06 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 12-06-2017, 05:11 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James_J View Post
If Eddie's identification of the colleagues he worked alongside at Battlecrease and his description of the work they conducted is accurate, that brings us back to the 9.3.92. So why isn't his name on the timesheet? I think Eddie provides us with the best answer;

"I think we just were sent there [Battlecrease] maybe to get us out the way for an hour, a couple of hours because they maybe didn’t have enough work, or it was one of them places you know."
If he didn't complete a timesheet how did anyone at Portus & Rhodes know how many hours he had worked on the job? Or was that not important?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 12-07-2017, 05:04 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But one thing I will say and I appreciate that no-one rightly cares about my opinion is that I can barely care less whether the diary was created in 1992 or 1922 or 1892. Any of those dates makes it a forgery and who forged it is of no more than academic interest (if that), just as I'm not in the slightest bit bothered who created all the forgeries which exist in the art world.

A forgery to me is a forgery whenever it is created.

My only interest in the diary is whether it is genuinely Jack the Ripper's diary. If not, then frankly I couldn't give a monkeys.

At the same time, if it came from Battlecrease then it must be Jack the Ripper's diary in my opinion. As I don't think it can be Jack the Ripper's diary, based on the use of an expression ("one off instance") which did not exist in 1889, then it couldn't have come out of Battlecrease.
Forgive the question, David, but why are you still here, investing so much time and effort into the subject, if you are 100% satisfied that, because James Maybrick could not physically have written "one off instance", the diary could not physically have come out of Battlecrease, no matter what?

You say you don't care when it was written or by whom, yet you seem to be mesmerised by your own fond image of Mike Barrett ["professional freelance journalist" my arse ] in the driving seat, with some mysterious accomplice sitting meekly behind him, whose handwriting does not belong to any of the known modern suspects, and getting the text penned into a guard book he could only have obtained at the end of March 1992, just a few days before taking the finished product to London, hoping to pass it off as genuinely Victorian.

If you can't see for yourself how utterly fantastic this image is [in the old sense], and why not even your chums Dr Baxendale or the late Melvin Harris would have given it credence, then there's very little more anyone could do for you, and even less point in them trying.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:20 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
Face it the diary is clearly a fake. This thread and David's research once and for all proves it.
Where have I said I thought it was genuine, John?

I 'faced' the fact years ago that the handwriting is not James Maybrick's. No research by David was needed to tell me that. I worked it out all by myself.

The fact that the handwriting is not Mike Barrett's either doesn't seem to bother people nearly as much for some reason. The argument is always the same: "We don't need to know who penned the diary for Mike. It's obvious that someone did".

Well that's about as obvious to me as a white cat hiding in a snowstorm.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:44 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Those who claim the diary was a "hoax", written after Maybrick's death and placed under the floorboards in the hope that someone would find it one hundred years later, or whenever, so that they could have a good chuckle, have only had 25 years to come up with a half-plausible and coherent scenario as to who, with some knowledge of both Maybrick's life and the JTR murders, as well as access to Battlecrease, could possibly have done such a thing and why they would have done it. I'm still waiting to read such a scenario but until then such a thing has to be considered as literally beyond belief.
Who is actually 'claiming' this as a fact, David? For those who continue to explore and test all avenues, who cannot reconcile the handwriting as being either James Maybrick's or Mike Barrett's, or that of any of his suspected accomplices, it has to remain a possibility that someone unknown and unconnected to Mike created the diary, and that it didn't get into Mike's hands in any of the ways he claimed as a fact that it did.

Do you also have to consider this last possibility as 'literally beyond belief', or is it only the raising of the floorboards that floors you?

It's funny that when anyone observes that modern hoax theorists 'have only had 25 years to come up with a half-plausible and coherent scenario as to who' actually created the text and penned the thing, if it was done in the early 1990s and, assuming Mike had to be one of those involved, what his actual involvement was and how he - or they - went about choosing the ripper's identity and making sure Maybrick had no alibis and what have you, they are told that no definitive answers to such questions are needed, and they are sent away with a flea in their ear. Are they not merely making a similar point to your own, but in reverse? Are they not 'still waiting to read such a scenario', which until then can only ever be just an unsupported exercise in wishful thinking?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 12-07-2017 at 07:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:25 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Here's a good example of the muddle and confusion at the heart of the Battlecrease provenance theory.

On 30 October in this thread (#49) were were told this about Mike:

"He is already denying this very real and potent connection between his diary and Battlecrease, long before anyone will make one, and continues to deny it for the rest of his life, so this requires a sensible explanation. He certainly isn't in the business of setting up a Battlecrease provenance for his diary, so we must look elsewhere.

Here's one explanation I prepared earlier:

Sometime in March 1992, a Battlecrease electrician approaches Mike in The Saddle: "Here you are, pal. Do something with it, but you didn't gerrit from me, right?"


"Sometime in March 1992" is rather strange wording considering that such a conversation can ONLY have taken place on 9 March 1992 (if the diary didn’t come out of the floorboards until that day and bearing in mind that Mike called Doreen that day too). But how is this in any way consistent with a supposed period of protracted negotiation over price that we are also told occurred and which was supposedly only resolved on or after 26 March once Mike discovered that the price for a Victorian diary was 25?

Or did the electrician simply give the diary to Mike for free and then only ask to be paid a few weeks later once Mike had worked out what the value was? A rather odd way of going about business I would have thought.
Of course, this was clearly only speculation, David, and not to be taken literally, even by you. But who said the diary had to be sold and handed over to Mike on the same day he called Doreen? It's more likely he was just shown it on that day, while he was in the pub before collecting his daughter from the school opposite, because the electrician thought Mike was the right sort of bloke to confide in. He only had to flip through it, read the signature at the end and say: "Jesus Christ, Eddie, what the effing hell have you got here? Nobody's going to believe this in a million years, are they? Tell you what I'll do, I'll make a couple of discreet enquiries when I get home and let you know the score". That would fit with an initial call to Rupert Crew sans diary [which you believe he did anyway], using a false name. The following day he gets through to Doreen and asks if she is interested in seeing JtR's diary. He gets back to Eddie, who agrees to sell it to him as long as his name is never mentioned, and at that point I suspect there would be some kind of gentleman's agreement to share any big money if and when it comes. Mike hasn't got much spare cash and there are no guarantees either of them will get rich, especially if both are naturally sceptical about the possibility of it being genuine. As soon as the royalties come in, in May 1994, Mike makes several large cash withdrawals, which could represent Eddie's payday.

Quote:
It is to be noted at this point that the attraction of the above "sensible explanation" for the Diary Defender is that everything happened just like Mike said it did with Tony Devereux only that, instead of Tony, one has to substitute Eddie - and bob's your uncle, it all fits. We have even been told that young Caroline got confused and genuinely thought that Mike's conversations about the diary were with Tony, not Eddie (even though, as I have quoted previously, Caroline made perfectly clear in her account that her father was discussing the diary with Tony Devereux, not anyone else).
Yes, that is a problem. How could a child still at primary school possibly not have known and later recalled that her father had discussed the diary on the phone with someone he had called "Tony", and when this was going on, and that he spoke to nobody else about it, certainly nobody he may have called "Eddie"? Hmmm, that's a tough one. Those names - so completely different and memorable in their own right. Or maybe Mike called all his mates by their surnames to make it easier for little Caroline to earwig and commit them to memory.

Or indeed, how could Caroline have known her father was discussing the diary with Tony Devereux, if the story Mike told about getting it from him, and even swore an affidavit to that effect, was just another lie? If you believe Caroline was recalling things accurately, you must either believe Mike did get the diary from Tony, or that Tony was helping Mike to forge it. But then you'd have Mike discussing this openly with him over the phone, calling him by name while doing it, and all in his daughter's hearing. Not likely in my view, but then nothing much about this whole saga is very likely.

Quote:
So the "sensible explanation" of Mike being given the diary in a pub and told to do something with it is suddenly not so sensible (and is abandoned) and Mike was only able to glimpse the book on 9th March before he made the telephone call to Doreen!
As I explained [and you could have read for yourself], I didn't actually say the diary was given to Mike on March 9th. I suggested 'sometime in March', which you assumed could only mean 9th. We only know he had it by April 13th when he was able to take it to London, so I should have allowed for Eddie to have parted with it 'sometime in March or early April'.

Quote:
Far from being told to "do something with it" and forget who gave it to him he is now being asked to fence it on behalf of that same person.
Do they have to be different things? If Eddie chooses Mike to fence the diary for him, he has little choice but to hand over both the book and control of it in return for Mike's word that he will never "split on a mate" and say who gave it to him. I'm really surprised anyone would struggle with the concept.

Quote:
The dizzying changes to the story are enough to make one's head spin.
Blimey, and I'm meant to be the dizzy blonde!

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 12-07-2017 at 09:29 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:59 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
And certain people seem to have an almost religious fervour in their belief, viewing any challenge to their view as heresy, while being unable to appreciate that there might be another answer, which makes it impossible to have any kind of sensible and rational discussion, although I am very much hoping that James will be different and, so far, despite the obvious agenda in his first post, there are some promising signs.
Oh yes, David, I believe James is very different. You do realise you managed to describe precisely how your own posts must come across to anyone still keeping their options open?

I could have sworn you had openly admitted to your own complete inability to appreciate there 'might be another answer' - to all sorts of issues, from why Mike tried to obtain a diary from 1880-1890 and why he was never able to prove his forgery claims if he really was involved and serious about confessing, to the whole modern forgery theory.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:15 AM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,475
Default

The smoke is a thick as ever I see and the mirrors are now wall to wall. What a load of you know what!!!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:26 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Once again I am asked why I am posting in my thread the thread I created as if there is something strange about it, despite the fact that many others are posting in it and it is, I think, the duty of an OP to respond to posts in their threads if they can be of assistance. One might more pointedly ask why someone who is so certain that the Diary came from beneath the floorboards is still posting in this thread, my thread, which is all about Mike Barrett acquiring a Victorian diary.

The supposed image of me being "mesmerised" by the notion of the diary's author being Mike Barrett, who obviously and undoubtedly was a professional freelance journalist by any definition, despite some people being in a serious form denial about it, is a complete fiction just like most of the daily round of nonsense that is posted by the Great Misunderstander. The concept of Mike having been involved in the creation of the Diary is nothing other than the most likely and logical outcome of him attempting to acquire a Victorian Diary with blank pages at a time when no-one else alive is known to have seen the JTR Diary.

Once again I see confirmation of ignorance on the part of someone who thinks it is not possible for a diary to be created on Monday and passed off as nineteenth century on the Tuesday, as if forgeries have to be allowed to mature for months or years before they suddenly take on the appearance or properties of age. It's nonsense! Art forgers do indeed produce purported Old Masters on Monday and sell them on Tuesday. The forger Kujau was churning out his Hitler diaries on a weekly basis and expecting them to be accepted as having been produced during the Second World War. It's a basic misconception that there is a foolproof way of testing a document for an old forgery.

Dr Baxendale, who is said to be my chum, although he isn't, was the first expert to examine the diary and he concluded in a written report that it was a modern forgery. Melvin Harris, also said to be my chum, although he wasn't, made some valid points, which I have never seen refuted, that most of the contents of the Diary in respect of information about the Ripper murders and the Maybricks could have been taken from a small number of books.

A look through the history of this thread will see that I was content to stop posting in it on 23 March 2017, having made all the points about the acquisition of a Victorian Diary that I wanted to make. I didn't bother to respond to an inconsequential post made by the Great Misunderstander on 4 April 2017. Others then brought the thread back to life in August (at which point I didn't post) and then again in October at which point I did respond. I really have no idea why this thread seems to have taken on a new life as a Battlecrease provenance thread but I don't complain about that. However, if people want to discuss the Battlecrease provenance and don't want to hear dissenting voices they can start their own thread and I will happily leave them alone to live in De Nile.
__________________
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 11:21 PM.


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