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 David Orsam 20 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by StevenOwl 36 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Derrick 38 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by GUT 1 hour and 14 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 1 hour and 26 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2 - by John Wheat 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (22 posts)
Non-Fiction: Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2 - (7 posts)
Casebook Examiner: Casebook Examiner Issues 1 - 7 - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (3 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have? - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (3 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
  #2631  
Old 01-05-2017, 06:06 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
It would have been insane would it not for Barrett to have presented Doreen with a fake Victorian Diary which he had written out in order to show her what the real diary looked like?
Hi David,

If his intention had been to pen a few passages into the blank pages of a genuine Victorian diary and try to pass them off to Doreen as the work of James Maybrick, before showing her the guard book and all its 63 filled pages, I would agree with you that it would have been one of Mike's more insane ideas. But I don't think anyone has suggested this as a realistic option, have they? It's certainly not one I had ever considered.

The possibility remains, however, that not really knowing what the heck he had, something Doreen said or asked him on the phone set him wondering what a typical Victorian diary should look like and if the one he had would be anything like Doreen was expecting to see. We can only guess why he specified (from memory) a diary dating from 1880-1890 (??) with some blank pages (although not nearly enough to take the whole text, assuming he knew by then how much text there was and the 'from' and 'to' dates) but without mentioning anything about the dimensions.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-05-2017 at 06:09 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2632  
Old 01-05-2017, 06:13 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,955
Default

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

But if Maybrick wrote the diary he would have been the first person in recorded history to use the term "one off". In fact, as Gareth pointed out, there's not another example until 1934, and even then its application was restricted to a strictly technical usage, i.e. in the engineering industry.

Would you therefore at least concede that the probability of Maybrick having used the phrase as early as the 1880s is infinitesimally small?
Hi John,

I don't think there is the least probability that Maybrick was the wag who used this or any of the other phrases as seen in the diary.

Will that do?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2633  
Old 01-05-2017, 06:26 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Yes, that is what I am telling you. Having done a search of the word "sidelined" in this thread, the first time it was mentioned by anyone was today (by you). And I haven't posted in any other Maybrick threads.
Are you serious? You actually did a search? I was making a general observation - albeit on this thread - about the watch being sidelined (as in ignored, disregarded, forgotten, not mentioned) on most Maybrick threads not specifically watch related. I wasn't claiming that the word 'sidelined' had been used by anyone else, on this or any other thread. Clearly, if most posters on most Maybrick threads prefer to put the watch to one side and forget about it while discussing the diary, the word 'sidelined' is not going to be used an awful lot, is it?

Are we done here now, David, or do you want to bring the sidelined watch up yet again on this thread?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2634  
Old 01-05-2017, 06:37 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
...it must be obvious that if you or anyone asked O&L if they sold a Victorian scrapbook in 1990 (which is when Barrett dated the purchase in his affidavit) you would not have obtained a useful answer if the scrapbook had actually been acquired in 1992.

That's the point. What I hope you now understand is that you can't say that Barrett's affidavit is "demonstrably untrue" in this respect, albeit that it might be mistaken as to the chronology of events.
So you think we only asked O&L about the year 1990, do you? We trusted Mike that much, by the early 2000s, that we went by one of the dodgy dates he had come up with over the years and didn't think to ask the kind of questions that would have given us a definitive answer as to whether Mike's version of events could have taken place at O&L - ever?

I'm afraid you really must think everyone but Mike was incompetent then.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2635  
Old 01-05-2017, 06:51 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But by the same token why didn't Kujau realise that he would be exposed after "five minutes" and go to prison? That's just how criminals operate Caz. It's called optimism.
I trust you are not suggesting Anne is a criminal, who was optimistic enough to think that she and her husband (yes, Mike Barrett) could pull off what Kujau had so recently failed to do, without the risk of her young daughter Caroline having to bake a cake with a nail file in when she visited her mum and dad in prison?

Quote:
One could say he has only fooled those who want to be fooled Caz.
Oh indeed, David. I have said as much on scores of occasions. Our Mike has been able to fool countless otherwise intelligent people into believing he had it in him to research and write the diary - and all because they wanted to be so fooled. If it's a late 20th century hoax they want, it comes with Mike Barrett attached and still pulling the strings. There's nothing to be done about it.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2636  
Old 01-05-2017, 07:03 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
This line of discussion is getting a bit silly. The cover story as to how the Hitler Diaries were acquired was rather different to the Maybrick Diary. No-one would have believed the Hitler Diaries came from "a dead mate". Why anyone believed it in the case of the Maybrick Diary I have no idea but the Sunday Times clearly didn't believe it (whereas they did believe the Hitler Diaries cover story).
I agree that Mike's "dead mate" story was always going to be hopeless. How did he and Anne manage to come up with the idea of this diary and get it written, only to be stuck with such a lame explanation for how it reached Mike's hands?

Naturally the Sunday Times were in 'once bitten...' mode following their public humiliation over the Hitler Diaries, so it's hardly a shock that they were not going to risk being 'fooled again'. They only had to shout 'fake' and sit back - forever - while others tried and inevitably failed to authenticate it. It was the only sane default position.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2637  
Old 01-05-2017, 07:26 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But what I asked you do was this:

"you might also want to consider my #1929 and let me know if any of the 10 points I listed in that post are demonstrably untrue and demonstrate the untruthfulness of them."


Far from doing this, you responded on the basis of whether the points listed were "fundamentally incorrect in every respect" as if I believed this was something you had said.

I only wanted to know if you thought the 10 points were "demonstrably untrue" or not (and, if so, to demonstrate the untruthfulness).
To save me the considerable bother of going over all the 10 points again, when my original observation was along the lines of nothing in Mike's statement being able to prove he had any involvement or knowledge of the diary's creation and some of it being demonstrably untrue, I'll refer you to another post of mine which I'm not sure you addressed:

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Confused or not, it must have been untrue that Mike obtained the guard book in 1990 unless it was untrue that he bought the 1891 diary first. Demonstrable untruth in there somewhere, surely?
Just to be clear, he claimed that he obtained the guard book after the tiny 1891 diary.

He obtained the latter in March 1992.

He claimed he obtained the former in 1990.

Now since the above is an impossibility, it must contain at least one demonstrable untruth. It was either an untruth to claim he obtained the guard book in 1990, or it was an untruth to claim he obtained it after the 1891 diary. Whether he got himself thoroughly confused over his dates or was just demonstrating an inability to keep a straight story to save his life, there it was, a demonstrable untruth.

If you believe it was the truth that he obtained the guard book before it contained the diary, that's entirely up to you, but it will never be a demonstrable truth.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-05-2017 at 07:29 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2638  
Old 01-05-2017, 09:33 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
He could read and write English couldn't he? Sufficient qualifications surely?

And how many people who offer their opinion about Barrett knew him in March 1992?
Hi again David,

How many out of all the people who would have known Mike long before, shortly before and after 1992 have ever come forward to express the opinion that he had 'sufficient qualifications' to produce the diary - in any other sense than to hand it over for inspection?

I can't recall a single person, can you? Was he so popular that nobody who knew him was disloyal enough to say he would have been capable? Or did he use his royalties to bribe them to keep it buttoned or pretend he couldn't have forged a sick note?

Most diary commentators will no doubt have read my little anecdote about a rude riddle Mike once tried to get published. It was one of those 'my first is in orange but not in apple' type of word puzzles, where the reader has to use the clues in each line to spell out a one-word solution. But Mike's words were all much naughtier than oranges and apples and the solution was not quite what he had had in mind because he couldn't spell it. There were eight lines of clues instead of six because he thought the rude word he was striving for was spelled 'o r g a n i s m'.

While I'm at it, I'm sure Robert Smith won't mind me telling you about another, more recent attempt by Mike to get something published. He wanted to write a novel around the 'coincidence' of Mary Kelly's murder happening on the same date as the destruction of the Twin Towers - 9/11.

Now I don't know whether he thought MJK died on September 11th, or the Twin Towers fell on November 9th, or whether he didn't think at all, but it's not a good look, is it?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2639  
Old 01-05-2017, 11:31 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Did people say "I think not", did they say "bitch" about anything else than a dog, did they "think long and hard" and was there "an overwhelming compulsion" in 1889?
A good effort from Pierre – what else would one expect? – but he is obviously unaware that language experts have already crawled all over the Diary.

The use of "bitch" to insultingly describe a woman goes back to the sixteenth century according to the OED.

The other expressions he lists can all be found in nineteenth century texts from a simple Google books search.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2640  
Old 01-05-2017, 11:35 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
I spent some time this morning testing whether "one-off" might have been an expression used in the cotton industry in the United States that James Maybrick could have picked up during his time Stateside in the early 1880's. I can accept that there may have been occurrences of the expression "one-off" in certain manufacturing activities late, as cited already here.

We do have the example, at least later on, of "one-off versus multiple" processes or patterns or whatever. However, I couldn't find anything in Google books. I was searching specifically for books that dealt with the U.S. cotton industry or contemporary letters talking about cotton manufacturing that might support such usage in the 19th century. But of course that is not to say that more extensive search in 19th century sources than I was able to do this morning might not turn up such examples.
I would add to this, Chris, by saying that it wouldn't actually matter if it was used in the cotton industry to mean a single item unless it can be shown that there was also a metaphorical usage whereby a single or unique item was viewed as being similar to hitting someone once (or similar).

The expression, in other words, has to go through two phases. From relating to a single made item, that item it has to first acquire an element of being unique or special and then it has to be regarded as comparable to a person or happening in a metaphorical way.

So if "one off" meant (say) a single piece of cotton in the 19th century (for which, of course, there is no evidence) that in itself would come nowhere near showing that the expression "one off instance" or similar had entered the English language.
__________________
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 01:58 PM.


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