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:
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - by Wickerman 1 hour and 5 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - by Pcdunn 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - by Trevor Marriott 5 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by DirectorDave 6 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Graham 6 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by richardnunweek 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (9 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - (5 posts)
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (5 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - (4 posts)
Bury, W.H.: "...but because you are going to hang me you will get nothing out of me..." - (1 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Was Whitechapel really any worse than other areas of London? - (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
  #2871  
Old 01-13-2017, 02:23 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
And are we still guilty today of reading whatever we want to read between the lines?
You may be but Iím certainly not. For that could only be possible if I wanted to arrive at a particular conclusion, which I donít. Iím totally new to the diary debate, have considered various options and have read your book but, in view of the evidence, I have ultimately concluded that Barrett must have been involved in forging the diary.

Iíve read all your posts directed at me Caz and nothing that you have said has even begun to convince me otherwise.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2872  
Old 01-14-2017, 02:41 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Therefore, it must be at least possible that a Victorian guard book was sold to someone (including Barrett) on March 1992. And that conclusion is unaffected by whether Barrett completely misdescribed the auction process because that is a separate issue.
I have to remind you here David that you are conveniently pursuing the bits in Barrett's 'confession' which you like and ignoring - surely not! - the bits you don't. Barrett 'confessed' to writing the journal prior to Tony's death in August 1991. I'm pretty sure that it was explicit in his 'confession' that whether he was physically writing the journal or typing it up first, he had in his possession the journal which became his brilliant hoax.

If he confessed to this and his confession amounts to the true account of events as you assume then you must drop the March 1992 argument, unless you - surely not! - wish to have it both ways.

Ike
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2873  
Old 01-14-2017, 03:38 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
I have to remind you here David that you are conveniently pursuing the bits in Barrett's 'confession' which you like and ignoring - surely not! - the bits you don't. Barrett 'confessed' to writing the journal prior to Tony's death in August 1991. I'm pretty sure that it was explicit in his 'confession' that whether he was physically writing the journal or typing it up first, he had in his possession the journal which became his brilliant hoax.

If he confessed to this and his confession amounts to the true account of events as you assume then you must drop the March 1992 argument, unless you - surely not! - wish to have it both ways.

Ike
Whatever David is saying The Diary is clearly a Hoax.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2874  
Old 01-14-2017, 04:27 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
I have to remind you here David that you are conveniently pursuing the bits in Barrett's 'confession' which you like and ignoring - surely not! - the bits you don't. Barrett 'confessed' to writing the journal prior to Tony's death in August 1991. I'm pretty sure that it was explicit in his 'confession' that whether he was physically writing the journal or typing it up first, he had in his possession the journal which became his brilliant hoax.
Everything I have said has been based on adjusting the chronology of Barrett's account on the basis of his purchase of the Victorian diary in March 1992.

So 1990 has to be adjusted to 1992. That is inherent in what i am saying. It is also inherent in what I am saying that Barrett's memory of events is not good and that the chronology of events in his affidavit cannot be relied upon.

Now, in his two affidavits Mike uses two terms to describe the process of creating the diary. One is "writing" it and one is "transcribing" it.

It seems to me that the process of writing the diary, according to the story in the affidavit, began with discussions with Devereux then moved on to researching the facts, then moved on to Barrett creating some "typed notes", by which he must be referring to some kind of draft of the diary, to him dictating the diary to his wife and her transcribing it during an 11 day period.

Now, it is perfectly true that Barrett says in his affidavit that the process of writing the diary was completed before Devereux's death but what I am suggesting is that he must have meant the process of drafting the diary as opposed to the 11 day period of the transcription.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
If he confessed to this and his confession amounts to the true account of events as you assume then you must drop the March 1992 argument, unless you - surely not! - wish to have it both ways.
I believe I said as recently as yesterday that my argument is not based on Barrett's affidavit or dependent on Barrett as a truthful or reliable person. It is based on his acquisition of the Victorian Diary with blank pages.

What I have said about Barrett's affidavit is: Tell me why it is not true.

The reason for this is that it has been said by many people, including yourself, that the account in Barrett's affidavit is so obviously false that it can be dismissed. I am challenging that notion.

But as far as I am concerned he might never have spoken to Devereux about the diary. He might never have dictated it to his wife but to a professional forger. Or someone else might have dictated it. The entire affidavit might be a fabrication. I don't know. But as Barrett is the person who produced the diary and he has told us how he forged it I want to know if that is account obviously and demonstrably untrue, adjusting, of course, for the dates.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2875  
Old 01-14-2017, 05:24 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,725
Default

As I said earlier David the diary is clearly a hoax. Also I trust what you are saying considerably more than Iconoclast.

Cheers John
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2876  
Old 01-14-2017, 06:30 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
As I said earlier David the diary is clearly a hoax. Also I trust what you are saying considerably more than Iconoclast.

Cheers John
I'm sure he's utterly galvanised by and deeply relieved at this overwhelming show of support from the Casebook community.

If only I could have such a thing I might feel more confident in my beliefs about the journal!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2877  
Old 01-14-2017, 10:13 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
I'm sure he's utterly galvanised by and deeply relieved at this overwhelming show of support from the Casebook community.

If only I could have such a thing I might feel more confident in my beliefs about the journal!
That's not going to happen as it's clearly a forgery.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2878  
Old 01-14-2017, 10:42 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
That's not going to happen as it's clearly a forgery.
I know! It's so obvious, isn't it?

All these idiots still debating it TWENTY-FIVE YEARS (a quarter of a century!!!) after it was launched onto an unsuspecting world!

What on earth is wrong with these people???
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2879  
Old 01-14-2017, 01:14 PM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
I know! It's so obvious, isn't it?

All these idiots still debating it TWENTY-FIVE YEARS (a quarter of a century!!!) after it was launched onto an unsuspecting world!

What on earth is wrong with these people???
I couldn't agree with you more those that believe the diary is genuine are clearly stupid.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2880  
Old 01-14-2017, 01:56 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
I couldn't agree with you more those that believe the diary is genuine are clearly stupid.
No, better than that, they've probably all been labotomised - utter numpties!

Ike
Journal Believer
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 08:00 PM.


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