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: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by MrBarnett 16 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - by Robert 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by Robert 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - by Robert 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (28 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (19 posts)
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - (15 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (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
  #701  
Old 01-27-2018, 11:41 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
I said it was Florence Aunspaugh who called that Maybrick "Sir James", not Maybrick himself.
That's simply not true Scott.

In #679 you said:

"Didn't one written by Florence Aunspaugh allegedly state that Maybrick referred to himself as "Sir Jim"?"

All you subsequently did in #686 (after I told you the answer to the above question was no and then you asked me if the Maybrick A-Z entry was wrong, which I told you it wasn't) was to quote from the entry in the Maybrick A-Z. You never made clear that you personally understood that it was not saying what your earlier question was premised on. So you did not say what you are now claiming you said, as the record of this thread clearly shows.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 01-27-2018, 02:50 PM
James_J James_J is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 126
Default

Evening all, just passing this along from KS.

TO ABBY NORMAL & DAVID ORSAM

My apologies for foolishly reading “taking” for “taken” in Abby’s post thereby completely altering the meaning of the sentence. I should have realised, of course, that if Abby had a query for me then he would have asked me direct. Thank you to David for picking up on my mistake and pointing it out to me.

David – in answer to your question:-

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Thanks Keith. So for the benefit of those people who don't seem to read posts properly, you are, I think, confirming the accuracy of what I said, namely that no evidence has ever been produced that JM ever referred to himself as either Sir Jim or Sir James nor that he liked to be called this when at home.
I can confirm that no evidence has ever been produced, (outside of a suspect and unauthenticated document), that JM ever referred to himself as either Sir Jim or Sir James nor that he liked to be called this when at home.

The only reason I involved myself in this discussion was to inform interested readers that I have a photocopy of an original letter from Florence Aunspaugh to Trevor Christie written, I think, during the 1940s (the complete letter is in my file which, at present, is not with me – and even them I’m not at all sure whether it is dated), which associates the name ‘Sir James’ with ‘Mr Maybrick’ during the Summer of 1888. That’s as far as I can go. I cannot specify precisely when it was written to Christie; how old Florence Aunspaugh was when she wrote it; how reliable Florence Aunspaugh was and how much weight or veracity should be given to her account. I reproduced (in transcript) the relevant section of the letter for purposes of information only. In your 2017 critique of Robert Smith’s book, Robert Smith And The Maybrick Dairy [sic]: The False Facts Exposed! Under Sir Jim, you had suggested:- “...that the name ‘Sir James’, if it was used at all, was something said privately to her [I interpret ‘her’ as Florence Aunspaugh] by Nurse Yapp in the same way that an employee might well refer to their employer as ‘his Lordship’ despite that person not, in fact, being a peer of the realm. My reading of Florence Aunspaugh’s letter is that Alice Yapp is expressing her opinion to the lodge-keeper and not to Aunspaugh. Not that it makes any difference to your main point or the argument. It’s just a little detail which suggests Florence Aunspaugh may have overheard this conversation between Yapp and the lodge-keeper, which in turn might supports the speculation that Florence Aunspaugh referred to James Maybrick as “Mr James” out of respect. Not that it makes any difference to your main point, with which I agree, that there is no known evidence that James Maybrick ever referred to himself as ‘Sir Jim’.

And in response to your question generated by my broaching the subject of the word processor...

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I don't suppose the receipt will reveal why Mike bought a word processor but I think some of us would like to know where Mike bought it and how much it cost.
...from memory, I believe it was Dixon’s and I just cannot recall what he paid except, confusingly, I believe he may have said it was second hand. I will try and pull together all of the various references. If Pinkmoon is correct with his year of 1986, then it may very well be, as I believe Pinkmoon strongly infers, that the word processor was purchased for the sole purpose of creating the text of the diary – pushing back the year of conceiving the idea to 1986. Barrett in his sworn affidavit of January 1995 states the idea came from discussions between himself, Tony Devereux and Anne Barrett. Certainly there was an association, via the Saddle, between Barrett and Devereux, but I’m not sure when this friendship began and without looking at my notes, cannot recall the year the Barretts moved to Goldie Street.

Best Wishes, Keith
__________________
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 01-27-2018, 10:58 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
So you did not say what you are now claiming you said, as the record of this thread clearly shows.
I was simply questioning the allegation that Maybrick was known as "Sir Jim" or "Sir James". Nothing more, nothing less.

Leave it you to twist around the wording in other people's posts to fit your warped preconceptions.

What an insecure ******* you are.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 01-28-2018, 01:12 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,287
Default

Personally, I find the Aunspaugh letter intriguing. It's odd that Maybrick is being referred to as "Sir James", considering that the Victorians were much more formal in their use of etiquette than would be typical today and, as far as I know, this is a form of address that is exclusively reserved for a knight of the realm.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 01-28-2018, 01:43 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I don't like to spoil a beautiful argument but, in fact, there are two mentions of "Sir Jim" in the diary prior to the self-appointed knighthood, both crossed out.
Thanks for the correction. I missed the crossed-out entries.
Quote:
The likelihood, in my mind, is that they are continuity errors by the author of the diary who had already drafted the knighthood section prior to the physical writing out of the diary but then added those lines into the poetry, not realising that he hadn't yet introduced the concept of the knighthood in the actual text.
Makes sense to me.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 01-28-2018, 04:38 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
I was simply questioning the allegation that Maybrick was known as "Sir Jim" or "Sir James". Nothing more, nothing less.

Leave it you to twist around the wording in other people's posts to fit your warped preconceptions.

What an insecure ******* you are.
Once again, Scott, that is not a truthful post. The insecurity can only be yours for failing to admit to an obvious error.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 01-28-2018, 04:40 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Skinner View Post
...from memory, I believe it was Dixon’s and I just cannot recall what he paid except, confusingly, I believe he may have said it was second hand.
Indeed, and resolving that confusion was one of the reasons why I asked to see the receipt.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 01-28-2018, 04:49 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Personally, I find the Aunspaugh letter intriguing. It's odd that Maybrick is being referred to as "Sir James", considering that the Victorians were much more formal in their use of etiquette than would be typical today
Why do you say that John? Are you saying that loads of people are called "Sir" today who are not entitled to be?

What about the possibility of a servant in the 19th century saying to another: "Take this up to his Lordship". Would you accept that might well have happened (a thousand times) in respect of someone who was not a Lord? Or is that something you believe that should only have been said about a genuine peer of the realm?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 01-28-2018, 05:34 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Why do you say that John? Are you saying that loads of people are called "Sir" today who are not entitled to be?

What about the possibility of a servant in the 19th century saying to another: "Take this up to his Lordship". Would you accept that might well have happened (a thousand times) in respect of someone who was not a Lord? Or is that something you believe that should only have been said about a genuine peer of the realm?
No, David, I'm suggesting the opposite: that it would be very unusual for somone to be referred to by the title "Sir", if they were not so entitled.

Regarding your His Lordship analogy. I very much doubt that Maybrick's servants would refer to him by using a mock title, at least not in the earshot of a family member or guest of the household!

Of course, in modern parlance, referring to a person as "His Lordship", despite them not being a peer of the realm, is a facetious means of describing someone who has acted in a supercilious manner. However, I'm not aware that it it has ever been common to refer to someone who is not a knight as "Sir" in the same context or, indeed, in any context.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 01-28-2018, 05:38 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
No, David, I'm suggesting the opposite: that it would be very unusual for somone to be referred to by the title "Sir", if they were not so entitled.

Regarding your His Lordship analogy. I very much doubt that Maybrick's servants would refer to him by using a mock title, at least not in the earshot of a family member or guest of the household!

Of course, in modern parlance, referring to a person as "His Lordship", despite them not being a peer of the realm, is a facetious means of describing someone who has acted in a supercilious manner. However, I'm not aware that it it has ever been common to refer to someone who is not a knight as "Sir" in the same context or, indeed, in any context.
So what are you saying then John? That on the basis of the conversation recollected by Aunspaugh, Maybrick was known as Sir James Maybrick in Liverpool during the 1880s? Seriously?
__________________
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 03:53 AM.


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