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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Why Did They Lower Their Guard? - by Varqm 4 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by jerryd 5 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2 - by PaulB 7 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2 - by Fisherman 8 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2 - by PaulB 9 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by moste 10 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Non-Fiction: Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2 - (16 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - (13 posts)
General Discussion: Edward Johnson - (2 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Why Did They Lower Their Guard? - (2 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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
  #2661  
Old 01-05-2017, 03:06 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
We've discussed this before but the mistake you are making is to think that he (as a forger) needed a diary from 1888. He didn't. What he was after was the paper, not the diary so much.

The story in the Maybrick Diary obviously crosses from 1888 to 1889. A single year would have been too limiting for this story.

There is also NO WAY that the forger wanted a diary broken into printed weeks and days. That would have been far too complicated and would cause him untold problems.

Note how there is no real sense of time or dates in the diary. We have no idea what days events are occurring on other than matching the known events to actual days.

In other words, he is not interested in 1888 specifically. He just wants a book from the period with blank pages in which to write. It's not a diary he wants specifically but a journal or, as it transpired, a scrapbook. However the only way he can realistically get a period journal is to ask for a diary with blank pages.
So you think he wouldn't have advertised for a (literally) plain journal/notebook dating from the LVP?

He was an unreliable guy, as we know from his various confession/retraction/confessions, and a complete fantasist, but in your scenario he seems to go out of his way to ask for more than he therefore needs, and potentially something which he absolutely doesn't need (the dates in an actual diary).

Are you therefore saying that he really wanted/needed a plain journal/notebook dating from the LVP but he asked instead for a diary from 1880-1891?

I must be tired - I'm just not following that one ...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2662  
Old 01-05-2017, 03:15 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
So you think he wouldn't have advertised for a (literally) plain journal/notebook dating from the LVP?

He was an unreliable guy, as we know from his various confession/retraction/confessions, and a complete fantasist, but in your scenario he seems to go out of his way to ask for more than he therefore needs, and potentially something which he absolutely doesn't need (the dates in an actual diary).

Are you therefore saying that he really wanted/needed a plain journal/notebook dating from the LVP but he asked instead for a diary from 1880-1891?

I must be tired - I'm just not following that one ...
You are not seriously suggesting that one can now find a completely blank journal or notebook from the LVP in existence and buy it are you?

Who would have kept such a thing for 100 years? It's impossible.

If you want a book with pages from the LVP it's going to have to be filled with something.

If you are planning to create a fake diary from the LVP, the obvious thing to try and get hold of is an actual diary from the LVP, as long as it has blank pages. A big advantage of this is that you know for sure that it comes from the LVP and will thus pass any scientific test.

If you can't find one suitable then a scrapbook does the job once you remove the photographs it contains and remove any evidence about the date of that scrapbook.

If you are going to explain why Mike wanted an LVP diary with blank pages you really do need to explain why he wanted blank pages.

I have explained it. You haven't.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2663  
Old 01-06-2017, 05:46 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Then you don't know the difference. Of course it would not be "a demonstrable untruth". It would only be so if you knew there were three pounds in the purse and it could be demonstrated that you knew it. If you genuinely thought there were four pounds in there then it's not an untruth, it's an error.
What?

An untruth may be defined as a statement, or an idea or belief, that is untrue (as in not true, false, not a fact).

So if I stated that I had four pounds in my purse (because I believed I had) and you checked and found only three, I would have made a statement that was demonstrably untrue, not true, false, not a fact, an error.

While most of the synonyms imply knowingly making an untrue statement, by no means all do:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/untruth

You will note that among the first synonyms listed are: error, illusion, misbelief, misconception. Among the first related words listed are: inaccuracy, misapprehension, miscomprehension, misinterpretation, misjudgment, misperception, misunderstanding, misinformation, misknowledge, misreport, misstatement. Further down we also see inaccuracy and incorrectness.

None of the above necessarily imply a deliberate intention to tell lies or deceive, but I fully accept that Mike was quite possibly deceiving - deluding - himself more than anyone else.

Don't you think it was just a little bit insane to make a confession statement like his, which could easily have resulted in a second police investigation, followed by a conviction for fraud or deception (he had made a lot of money out of the book-buying public by then), but only if his claims contained truths that could be tested against the evidence to demonstrate he was knowingly involved beyond reasonable doubt in a hoax created in the late 20th century for profit?

If Mike knew it was all lies, however, told to get Feldman and all his demons off his back, while trying to make himself look like a master forger, he also knew nothing could be proven conclusively, so he could simply deny it all again (as he did at various times since 1995) if push came to shove, or if he wanted to revert to the Devereux provenance and his stated belief that the diary was genuine (which I believe was his final position). The one option he always denied the most consistently and strenuously was a Battlecrease provenance in any shape or form - the ideal backstory for a budding forger.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-06-2017 at 05:54 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2664  
Old 01-06-2017, 06:18 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Well this thread is only about refuting the Diary, not proving who forged it.

All I can do is note that Barrett says in his affidavit:

"I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper."

Why did that not happen?
Because Mike's original claim, that he wrote it himself, was not considered credible, so he had to come up with another idea?

Because it's not in Anne's handwriting and there is no evidence that she'd have been able to disguise it well enough and thoroughly enough to fool experts like Sue Iremonger?

Because (whisper whisper) the diary didn't need 'working on', having come out of Battlecrease and found its weary - wary - way to Mike, ready written and raring to go public?

Because had Mike 'worked on the story' himself he'd have had Mary Kelly killed on September 11th (9/11), between Chapman and the double event?

Because he'd have produced something even the most loyal wife would have been too embarrassed to write down?

Any more suggestions on a saucy postcard...

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2665  
Old 01-06-2017, 06:36 AM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,784
Default

I agree with half of your post caz xxx
__________________
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2666  
Old 01-06-2017, 06:39 AM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,784
Default

I agree with half of your post caz xxxx
__________________
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2667  
Old 01-06-2017, 06:40 AM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,784
Default

Mike barrett didnt write it of that im sure .
__________________
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2668  
Old 01-06-2017, 06:56 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
According to the diary, Maybrick hits Florence and then:

"I apologised, a one off instance, I said..."

So he records it as something he has said to his wife, who he presumably expected to understand him.
Ah, so you take it literally as a direct quote, David? Even so, I expect she would have understood what her hubby meant, seeing as he said "sorry" (or was it "I apologise"?) and went on to pretend that he "regretted" having hit her (in case she wasn't sure what sorry meant), then assured her it would never happen again. So perhaps when he told her it was a 'one off instance', and she said "what the heck is one of those when it's at home?" he was compelled to spell it out for her in the way he describes in the diary. I doubt she'd have been discombobulated for more than a second or two.

Now what do you make of 'the whores mole bonnett'? Would Florie have understood such a reference, do you suppose, where we have all been struggling to make sense of it?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-06-2017 at 06:59 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2669  
Old 01-06-2017, 09:23 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But I will add that have noticed that many of those who believe the diary to be genuine have been way to quick to dismiss what Barrett has said about how the diary was produced (based, it seems, largely on O&L's denials of selling such a diary in 1990 and minor points about how their auctions were conducted) and laughed (literally or metaphorically) at those who have dared suggest that on this occasion Barrett might have been telling the truth. As if such a thing is impossible.

Mike Barrett was the person who produced the diary to the world and Mike Barrett is the person who swore an affidavit telling the world that it was a forgery. You must admit that in those circumstances it is at least reasonable for the world to think it a forgery, no?
Hi David,

I'm not sure why you addressed this post to me.

I don't believe the diary to be genuine and am sick of having to repeat myself. Also, I have not said anything about the reasonableness or otherwise of a world that doesn't know Mike from Adam thinking it a forgery.

The world might not know that whoever penned the diary made no attempt to copy Maybrick's handwriting, making it a rather eccentric form of 'forgery'. That is why I prefer to think of it as a hoax, and go along with the Rendell team's 'prior to 1970' conclusion. I see the Rendell team as a more reliable witness than Mike. I apologise if that leaves you perplexed.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-06-2017 at 09:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2670  
Old 01-06-2017, 10:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
What?

An untruth may be defined as a statement, or an idea or belief, that is untrue (as in not true, false, not a fact).

So if I stated that I had four pounds in my purse (because I believed I had) and you checked and found only three, I would have made a statement that was demonstrably untrue, not true, false, not a fact, an error.

While most of the synonyms imply knowingly making an untrue statement, by no means all do:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/untruth

You will note that among the first synonyms listed are: error, illusion, misbelief, misconception. Among the first related words listed are: inaccuracy, misapprehension, miscomprehension, misinterpretation, misjudgment, misperception, misunderstanding, misinformation, misknowledge, misreport, misstatement. Further down we also see inaccuracy and incorrectness.

None of the above necessarily imply a deliberate intention to tell lies or deceive, but I fully accept that Mike was quite possibly deceiving - deluding - himself more than anyone else.
Did you miss this definition given by Websters of "untruth"?

"a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive."

If that was not the sense in which you were using the word when you said that parts of Barrett's statement were "demonstrably untrue" then what was the point you were trying to make?

If you were just trying to say that there might be some innocent errors in there, and that Barrett was not necessarily making statements known by him to be untrue, then there's not much point us having a semantic debate about the meaning of truth because I agree with you that this is possible.

In other words, Barrett was not necessarily lying when he said that the Diary was purchased in 1990 but confused as to the correct chronology.

And he was not necessarily lying when he explained how he purchased the Diary but a little confused in his recollection as to the system at O&L.

Do you agree with those last two statements?

If so, there is nothing between us.
__________________
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 10:32 PM.


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