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 miss marple 28 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by miss marple 53 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Ripperologist: Ripperologist 161 April/May 2018 - by Ginger 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by GUT 10 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by GUT 10 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (16 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (7 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (6 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (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
  #201  
Old 02-21-2018, 08:01 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
"...what they have in store for them they would stop this instant. But do I desire that?"

"desire that" is actually next line, but there it is.
what does:

Quote:
Actually, is there anything in the diary text that could be seen as an excuse or explanation for the type of book used, its state of repair, the missing pages etc?...
have to do with this??

Quote:
]"...what they have in store for them they would stop this instant. But do I desire that?"
__________________
"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
  #202  
Old 02-21-2018, 08:11 AM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,734
Default

Starting in mid sentence, mid thought and apparently mid journal suggest that part of the journal itself was torn out for some reason rather than pages used to mount photographs in. This indicates working around what the book actually was and its condition when procured.

Hope this is understandable?
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 02-21-2018, 08:25 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
Starting in mid sentence, mid thought and apparently mid journal suggest that part of the journal itself was torn out for some reason rather than pages used to mount photographs in. This indicates working around what the book actually was and its condition when procured.

Hope this is understandable?
like a modern hoaxer trying to muddle the fact that pages had been ripped out and acting like it was done after the writer had started writing?

clever... not.
__________________
"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
  #204  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:42 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
Hi Caz,

Yes, the very first line of text.
Yep, I thought of that one. Thanks Cris.

Any more?

I wonder how many last-minute amendments to the prepared text would become apparent if one assumes the physical book was only acquired, as David Orsam theorises, at the very end of March 1992, with just 12 days to go before the ink was blotted on the finished forgery and it was presented to Doreen and Shirley, and taken to the British Museum and Jarndyce for its first close inspections?

Much less problematic, I'd have thought, to cut one's garment according to one's cloth, by first acquiring the book and then tailoring the contents to suit it. But then, did Mike ever do things the easy way?

I do think much of the text fits rather conveniently with the guardbook containing it, as an item more at home in an office environment than someone's personal diary would have been. In theory it could once have contained business cards and such, and been adapted to accommodate jottings too private for prying eyes.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 02-21-2018 at 09:54 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:44 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
If Mike had the diary at that point, yes. But what if he made his preliminary telephone enquiries before he had actually taken the diary off his electrician mate's hands for 25?



Not sure I grasp this, John. Why would size matter unless he needed this Victorian diary to forge JtR's? If he had already seen JtR's, judged it to be a diary from the date at the end, and just wanted to know how easy it would have been for a scallywag to obtain any diary from the 1880s with enough blank pages for a leg pull, the size of those pages need not have seemed an important consideration.



You're just beginning to get the hang of how Mike operated. If you can do that you'll have to give the rest of us lessons.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

Perhaps I've misunderstood your point. My understanding is that you had postulated that Mike had doubts about the diary he allegedly received from TD. He therefore decided to see how easy it would be to obtain a suitable Victorian diary- the maroon diary-and, following his failed effort, concluded that it wouldn't be easy at all. Ergo, the TD diary was probably genuine. Is that correct?

Provisionally assuming that it is, I will refer to you to Mike's original sworn statement on the subject. Here is the salient part:

"About January 1990 Anne purchased a diary, a red leather back diary for 25...through a firm in the 1986 Writers and Artists Year book...when it arrived it was no use, it was too small..."

Now, in Post #1 of the Acquiring A Victorian Diary thread, David reproduces an advert, placed on behalf of Mike, requesting a "unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages".

Although the dates don't match, this advertisement was placed in 1992, Mike could have got mixed up. I'd therefore assumed that you were arguing this advertisement resulted in the red diary.

Okay, if that's the case, the reason, of course, that this diary was unsuitable was because it was too small, as noted by Mike in the aforementioned affidavit. However, in these circumstances, Mike's failure to obtain a suitable diary on this occasion wasn't because it was such a difficult endeavour, but because he'd omitted to stipulate minimum and maximum size requirements in the advertisement. And, unless he was having a really bad day at the office-as this is Mike we're talking about, it's possible!-I don't think he could have come to any other reasonable conclusion.

Does this make sense? Or have I totally misunderstood your argument?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:58 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

I'll get back to you on this tomorrow, John, if I may.

My better half is running me a bath - so he must think I need one!

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 02-21-2018, 10:23 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Well doesn't that tell you that some of us want the truth, regardless of whether it's more inconvenient than convenient? If there is no reliable supporting evidence for one story [Anne/Devereux], and not enough - yet - for the others [Barrett hoax or Maybrick's floorboards], and none of them makes perfect sense alongside all the information we have to date, it's not a case of 'latching on' to the one we would most like to be true, but trying to find support for, or evidence against, each of the possible alternatives.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

Yes, I absolutely agree. However, the starting point for me has to be the "one-off" problem. For instance, I believe Sam, in an earlier post, said that the earliest example he could find of the phrase being used in common parlance, so outside of the strictly technical engineering context, was the 1980s (apologies if my recollection is incorrect).

Therefore, on this basis, I consider it highly unlikely that The Diary could have been written prior to this period, or whenever the phrase entered common parlance. I would therefore conclude that The Diary was probably forged by either Mike, or someone known to him, or a combination of the two (although my views are not set in stone, and I have been known, on more than one occasion, to change my mind on important issues!)

Could Mike have been the forger. Well, unlike some I do believe The Diary was well-written. In fact, in the preface of Shirley's book, the highly respected criminologist, Professor David Canter, refers to the writing in glowing terms, concluding that if it was written by a forger, that individual would be a "...shy, but emotionally disturbed genius, who combined the novelist's art with an intelligent understanding of serial killers, the agreed facts of Jack the Ripper and James Maybrick." (Harrison, 1994).

Does this sound like Mike? Well, no-one who interviewed him seems to think him capable of the forgery, and they certainly don't refer to him in the way Professor Canter describes the character of a possible forger.

Moreover, as I've noted before, Mike seems to me to be simply too erratic, too ill-disciplined to have succeeded with such a project, at least without a great deal of help.

I would also refer to Caroline's recollection of her dad pestering Tony for information on the telephone. Now assuming Caroline's memory is correct, and further assuming that Mike hadn't set up some madcap fake telephone call for his daughters benefit, the implication is that Mike was unaware of the origins of the diary, at least at this stage.

All in all, it's a very murky, and complex case, and I would therefore advise myself to submit only provisional conclusions!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 02-21-2018, 10:29 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I'll get back to you on this tomorrow, John, if I may.

My better half is running me a bath - so he must think I need one!

Love,

Caz
X
No problem Caz. I'm about to start my own process of relaxation by reading a crime thriller, whilst drinking a cool beer, as my brain is starting to feel fuzzy!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 02-22-2018, 01:02 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

I should just provide an update to Post #207. David informs me, on another a thread, that there was a Thames TV programme called "one-off" broadcast in September 1969; the programme was about unique individuals. Therefore the phrase must have been in common usage during the 1960s.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:47 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,

Perhaps I've misunderstood your point. My understanding is that you had postulated that Mike had doubts about the diary he allegedly received from TD. He therefore decided to see how easy it would be to obtain a suitable Victorian diary- the maroon diary-and, following his failed effort, concluded that it wouldn't be easy at all. Ergo, the TD diary was probably genuine. Is that correct?
Not quite, John, no. Let me try again and apologies for not being clearer!

I do think that anyone being shown this old book for the first time would have been sceptical to say the least. "Jack the Ripper?? You have got to be kidding me". However, this is Mike we are talking about. And if he had nothing to do with its creation, but was first shown it either in 1991 by TD or, far more likely IMHO, on March 9th 1992 by EL, we can only imagine what his immediate reaction might have been.

Well we know exactly what he did on or around March 9th 1992: he rang a literary agent and made the first known and documented mention of JtR's diary. He also made the telephone enquiry about diaries with blank pages from the 1880s. If this was his way of investigating the likelihood of EL [or A.N.Other] having pulled his leg with an easily obtainable unused or partly used Victorian diary, we can only guess what his reaction was when the little red diary arrived. But he wasn't sent half a dozen items that would all have been a forger's dream, and by then he had already interested Doreen to the point that she wanted him to bring his diary to London, so he decided to take the plunge and was rewarded when all went well on April 13th.

The alternative, that the Maybrick diary had been a work in progress for up to two years previously, and Mike was only just now, on or around March 9th 1992, tasked with ascertaining if anyone might be interested in publishing such an artefact [??], and then trying to find a suitable 'diary' [which is what he asked for] in which to house the prepared text, strikes me as stretching things to breaking point in an attempt to make things fit with Mike's shaky old affidavit from January 1995.

Quote:
Provisionally assuming that it is, I will refer to you to Mike's original sworn statement on the subject. Here is the salient part:

"About January 1990 Anne purchased a diary, a red leather back diary for 25...through a firm in the 1986 Writers and Artists Year book...when it arrived it was no use, it was too small..."

Now, in Post #1 of the Acquiring A Victorian Diary thread, David reproduces an advert, placed on behalf of Mike, requesting a "unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages".

Although the dates don't match, this advertisement was placed in 1992, Mike could have got mixed up. I'd therefore assumed that you were arguing this advertisement resulted in the red diary.
Yes, you assumed correctly. I have no doubt whatsoever that the advert placed in 1992 resulted in Mike being sent the little red diary.

Quote:
Okay, if that's the case, the reason, of course, that this diary was unsuitable was because it was too small, as noted by Mike in the aforementioned affidavit. However, in these circumstances, Mike's failure to obtain a suitable diary on this occasion wasn't because it was such a difficult endeavour, but because he'd omitted to stipulate minimum and maximum size requirements in the advertisement. And, unless he was having a really bad day at the office-as this is Mike we're talking about, it's possible!-I don't think he could have come to any other reasonable conclusion.
But this supposes that Mike was telling the truth in 1995, when claiming that the little red diary was evidence of an attempt to find a suitable book to house the forged diary. He was using its small size to explain why the attempt obviously failed, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have specified a minimum page size to begin with if they were really hoping to use it for that purpose. It's a point I've made more than once and all I got were excuses for why Mike might have been unable to get this crucial detail included in the advert, even supposing he thought to ask.

Trying to ascertain the general availability to a potential prankster of 1880s diaries with blank pages would have been one thing; trying to obtain one suitable for housing the prepared Maybrick diary text would have been quite another. If Mike had had up to two years for this task, and the text was now ready to go, barring any last-minute amendments, one has to ask what he was thinking of with that advert, assuming it was worded roughly in line with his request.

None of the entries are dated [apart from the final one], but they cover a period from early 1888 to May 1889 and 63 pages of the guardbook measuring approx 11 x 8.5 inches, so by asking for a 'diary' - singular and any size - dating from 1880 to 1890, Mike would already have been lessening his chances significantly of getting anything a forger could have used for the text as we know it.

Is that any better?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 02-22-2018 at 05:55 AM.
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 01:29 AM.


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