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:
Scene of the Crimes: Just where was 29 Hanbury Street............. - by The Station Cat 36 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by The Station Cat 40 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by The Station Cat 41 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by barnflatwyngarde 41 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Fisherman 42 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by Pcdunn 45 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (27 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (12 posts)
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - (11 posts)
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - (10 posts)
Visual Media: Dutfield's yard victim in situ - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Bank Holiday Murders by Tom Wescott (2014) - (4 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
  #2991  
Old Today, 06:58 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The "likes" of me? I have no idea what that means.

I am the person to whom you said he could take or leave the Battlecrease evidence and replied that he would rather leave it. So if you continue to address posts to me about the Battlecrease evidence I think I not only have the right to object but also to state that I won't continue to discuss this topic with you if you do so.
Of course you have the right to 'object' to anything I post and to express that objection by discontinuing your responses and questions to me. I meant what I said. I won't be told by the likes of you what I may or may not post, if I consider it relevant to my own responses - the "likes" of you referring to any of my fellow casebook members who would like to censor me.

Quote:
If you mean by that comment that I am accusing Mike Barrett's wife of writing the diary I need to correct you. It was Mike Barrett who accused his wife of writing the diary.
I know you are not accusing Anne - you wouldn't be so foolish. You sit behind a dead man and let him do all the accusing, while arguing against anyone who suggests his accusations were false.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2992  
Old Today, 07:08 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Are you saying that I can't rely on Mike's actions in attempting to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992?
Not at all, David. You could rely on my cat to help you date the diary if you so wished. I won't be relying on anything Mike said or did from March 9th 1992 until he shuffled off, to tell me who wrote the diary, when or why.

Quote:
As I previously asked you, but don't recall an answer, do you think this was all part of a grand plan to put future investigators onto the wrong scent?
I probably didn't answer because I don't understand the question. What did you mean by 'this'? What 'grand plan'?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2993  
Old Today, 07:35 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Only here could this diary scam still hold anyones attention.
It's a fair point, Michael.

I wholeheartedly admit to being diary-curious. I would be fascinated to know what kind of person (or people) created it, when and to what purpose. That is why it will continue to hold my attention. If I believed it was James Maybrick, writing his true confession in 1888/9, I would not be here. If I believed it was a Barrett production from the late 1980s/early 1990s I would not be here.

I don't give a second thought to the Hitler Diaries. I wouldn't visit a fake moon landing site if you paid me (don't even know if one exists and won't be looking it up). Life's far too short to knock on the doors of Jehovah's Witnesses to tell them the error of their ways. Mind you, I did rashly invite one into my home once, sat him down with tea and cakes, spent ten minutes discussing the weather, my bunions and the cat's fleas, then after an awkward pause in the conversation I asked him why he had called round. He said: "I have absolutely no idea, I've never got this far before".

And that sums it up for me. Why does anyone bother with the diary and the diary-curious once they are satisfied there is no mystery?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2994  
Old Today, 07:55 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
So this is an interesting philosophy you adopt. Because my imagination can't think of any innocent explanation for the purchase of the 1891 diary you think I won't accept one if it is provided.

Well that's not the case. But what I can't accept is that Mike wanted to write out some parts of the diary text in his handwriting into the back of a genuine Victorian diary, otherwise filled with genuine Victorian diary entries, in order to take to London to provide Doreen with a "taster" of what the real diary of Jack the Ripper (or parts of it) would look like. Because of course he would have assumed she could not imagine what a Victorian Diary of Jack the Ripper would look like without seeing his handwritten version of it first.
Still not quite what I had in mind, David. Initially it would have been Mike wondering how the diary he had acquired (or was about to fake, if you prefer) might compare to anyone else's actual diary from 1889 or thereabouts. He didn't know what Doreen was likely to make of it, did he? If he wasn't sure what a real diary from the period would look like, because he'd never seen one before, he could only guess if Doreen would be equally unsure or had seen hundreds of the things.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2995  
Old Today, 08:20 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
As to the factual position, I find myself having to quote your book at you. After stating that Kenneth Rendell told Shirley Harrison that a word processor had been found with a transcript of the Diary on disc, your book states:

"Back in March 1992, when he [Barrett] was due to take the Diary to Doreen Montgomery, he claimed he had decided that it would be a good idea to type out a transcript of the Diary which would be easier to read. His own attempt at typing was so poor that it was eventually typed by Anne, a secretary by profession, while Barrett dictated."

I believe this account was subsequently confirmed by Anne Graham in person, so I assume that means you will not question it.

However, if you don't think that Barrett's account is true then it simply raises the question of why he or his wife had the text of the diary on their computer, and when exactly it was typed.
Mike wasn't 'due' to take the diary to Doreen until April 13th 1992. Assuming he had it when phoning her on March 9th, there was plenty of time for Anne to type the transcript from the diary after that date. Unless Anne was listening in on each call between Mike and Doreen, Mike may have told her the transcript was his idea, even if it was Doreen's or if they had both thought of it. Anne's confirmation doesn't help you pinpoint when the typing was done, but explains why the diary text was on their word processor.

Naturally you will not let go of the possibility that they were both lying about the sequence of events, and that the transcript was already typed before the call to Doreen, before the guard book was even acquired and before the text was transferred by hand into it. But good luck if you think it can ever be proved.

Love,

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


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 11:39 AM.


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