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:
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - by SuspectZero 3 hours ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by GUT 8 hours ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by Wolf Vanderlinden 10 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by Mayerling 11 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: East End Walk - by barnflatwyngarde 11 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (2 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: East End Walk - (1 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - (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
  #2731  
Old 01-11-2017, 05:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I can hardly believe what I'm reading.

Firstly, yes that very option has been suggested by both Iconoclast and StevenOwl in this thread.

Secondly, you agreed with them!

You actually quoted Iconoclast as saying "He wanted to write out the journal in another document and take that to London rather than risk taking the original" and, in response, you said(#2361): "I think your interpretation is a definite possibility". You even said: "He may have wanted enough blank pages to copy out some particularly significant parts of the text, to give Doreen a taste of what he had on offer and gauge her interest, before parting with the 63-page guard book itself."

Isn't that what you are now describing as one of Mike's "more insane ideas"?

Really Caz I don't know what it is you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that Mike wanted to copy out the diary text into a Victorian diary and show it to Doreen while telling Doreen that this wasn't the real Maybrick Diary?

What would have been the point of that?

I mean, what would have been the point of going to all the trouble and expense of writing it out in a genuine Victorian Diary when he could have just written it out in a modern exercise book or prepared a typed transcript?

And, indeed, wasn't the very reason that Mike and Anne said they had the whole diary transcribed on their computer because they prepared it for Doreen in March 1992?

Surely if Mike wanted to show Doreen what the Diary looked like he could have just shown her some photographs couldn't he, if he was worried about transporting the diary itself?

Copying out the text of the Diary into another Victorian diary to show Doreen what a Victorian diary with writing in it looked like????? Seriously????
I will not address the above strangeness, David, as I think I have now clarified what I had in mind (and what I didn't, which is much of what you wrote above) sufficiently well for anyone of your intelligence to grasp.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2732  
Old 01-11-2017, 06:03 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I love the way you realise by the second sentence that the suggestion in the first sentence doesn't make sense of Mike specifying a diary with blank pages. So you basically end up with a suggestion that makes no sense and does not explain what Mike was doing.
Then you must also love the way you can sit back and not even try to see this from a totally ignorant Mike's perspective, because you have absolutely no clue whether he had the means or the motive, much less the opportunity, to be involved at the diary's creation stage, and you are guessing he had all three - in spades.

I fully admit I don't have that luxury, but I don't envy you for it either. It is what it is.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2733  
Old 01-11-2017, 06:47 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Your criticism that the watch has been sidelined (using any word you like to replace sidelined) was a very strange one to make in this thread when the thread is nothing to do with the watch. That is what prompted my response that the answer is obvious. As far as I am aware no-one else has made a similar criticism in this thread because it's a thread about the Diary.
More observation than criticism, David, but I don't think I was addressing you personally in any case when I observed that the watch tends to get sidelined. Had I appreciated that you had only ever read and posted to this Maybrick thread, and would therefore find it a 'very strange' thing to write on this thread, I might have thought to qualify my remark at the time, with something like: "For the benefit of anyone who doesn't follow any of the debates on the numerous other Maybrick threads, I have observed that the watch tends to get sidelined on any that are not specifically watch related. But you [insert name of poster who brought it up] should not have mentioned it here and I should be spanked soundly if I fail to qualify my observation adequately, so that someone seeing it here might find it 'very strange'."

I wonder if it's just me, or if anyone else finds the way you debate the subject of this thread 'very strange' indeed?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-11-2017 at 06:57 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2734  
Old 01-11-2017, 07:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Well Caz I have to remind you what appears in your book (p.167):

"Having searched through the company’s files and archives on both sides of the alleged sale date, Whay confirmed that ‘no such description or lot number corresponding with Barrett’s statement exists.’"

So Kevin Whay, who was a director of O&L, says only that a search was conducted on "both sides of the alleged sale date". The alleged sale date in Barrett's affidavit was "the end of January 1990".
I don't know what Whay meant by 'on both sides of', but then I don't know what you meant by claiming he 'only' said the above. It's very strange because my copy of Ripper Diary (same page) quotes Whay also saying: Furthermore we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes.

Quote:
So Caz, rather than me asking questions about what you did or did not do, why not tell us straight and plain: Did O&L conduct a search of their files and archives for the period March/April 1992 and did this search enable them to state categorically that Mike Barrett did not purchase a Victorian scrapbook from them at that time?
I don't know, David. Do you know they would have needed to, in order to conclude that Mike had never completed an obligatory registration form; that he didn't get the guard book from O&L; and that he was talking through his hat about the manner in which they had conducted their sales at any time?

To add to Mike's dating problems, he gave his private investigator Alan Gray two dates for his claimed purchase, three years apart. One was 1987, the other 1990. If he really wanted Gray to help him prove he got the thing from O&L, very shortly before handing over the finished product in April 1992, and wasn't just giving everyone the runaround, he wasn't making things easy, was he? Since Gray pointed out the three-year discrepancy, having cautioned Mike not to be seen 'telling any more lies', he would have realised if he was just getting his years badly confused. Why did it not occur to him to ask Shirley, Doreen, Robert or Keith (if he wasn't willing or able to ask Anne, his partner-in-crime) to confirm when he first took the diary to London? He would then have known well before the start of 1995 that he must have attended the auction that same year, not even a month before he and Anne would have put the finishing touches to the diary.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-11-2017 at 08:08 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2735  
Old 01-11-2017, 08:51 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Caz – this is the very reason why I asked you to take my earlier posts into account before replying to me: so that you didn't respond (as I knew you inevitably would) by saying that, because O&L searched their records for 1990, Barrett couldn't have acquired the scrapbook in 1990, so that this claim is "a demonstrable untruth." This is an utterly futile response if the answer is that Barrett got his chronology wrong.
I agree it would have been an utterly futile response if I had written this pile of crap, David, but I didn't. Is this why you only put speech marks at the end, because at the beginning you knew you were misquoting me but got confused as you went along and actually thought I'd written this?

I don't know if O&L only searched their records for 1990, but I don't recall claiming it was the search that demonstrated an untruth in Mike's statement. I can only repeat that Mike could not have got the guard book in 1990, as he claimed, if he didn't get it until after he acquired the 1891 diary, as he claimed in the same statement. Conversely, he could not have acquired the 1891 diary before the guard book, as he claimed, if he got the guard book in 1990, as he claimed in the same statement.

Quote:
If he got his chronology wrong then him saying that he bought the scrapbook is 1990 is no more than an error of dating not an untruth. Given that he also says in his affidavit that he bought the 1891 diary before the scrapbook and that we know for a fact that this purchase was in March 1992, it is reasonable to suppose that "1990" is a dating error isn't it?
An untruth can be a delusion or an error, as I have demonstrated previously with this link (you don't need to search beyond the very first two definitions):

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

And yes, I have no doubt whatsoever that 1990 was just another of Mike's dating errors, while trying to figure out how to make at least one of his various and varied forgery confessions credible when compared to facts that could be established. But he could have said 1987 (which he did at one point), 1992, or anything in between, and it would still not have been anywhere close to a demonstrable truth that he was ever at O&L, bidding for that guard book.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-11-2017 at 08:53 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2736  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:20 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Im not aware of anyone who knew him before March 1992 who has expressed an opinion on the subject either way. I don't even know if anyone has been asked.

But perhaps you can tell me: Who are all these people who knew him prior to March 1992 who have expressed an opinion that he did not have sufficient qualifications to do it then?
Buggered if I know, David. Maybe Mike locked himself away until 1992 so nobody could get to know him well enough to comment. Doesn't stop people commenting here today, when they didn't know him from Adam, so I just wondered why we don't hear about his sufficient qualifications from anyone who would have been sufficiently qualified to judge back in 1992.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2737  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:41 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
He wanted to write a novel did he? So he at least thought he was capable of creative fiction. What else is the Diary but creative fiction?
Absolutely, David. But there's a world of difference between thinking oneself capable of something and actually doing it and getting away with it. Remember, it was Robert Smith who published the diary and Robert Smith who chuckled with me over Mike's various attempts at 'creative' anything but unholy messes.

Quote:
With the diary, on his own account in his affidavit, he had his sensible wife writing everything out for him and thus checking everything first so he wasnt going to be mistaking organisms for orgasms or getting dates the wrong way round.
She made an unholy mess of spelling the word rendezvous then, for a sensible woman. No dictionaries available in March/April 1992?

Quote:
The crucial point that I keep making and you keep ignoring is that it was supposed to be a joint enterprise.
Well yes, it was 'supposed' to be, but only according to Mike, because his first attempt, in June 1994, to claim the diary as his own work went down so well that he knew he had to come up with something just a tad more credible next time.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2738  
Old 01-11-2017, 10:11 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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."
I readily agreed that most of the definitions imply knowingly stating an untruth. That's just one more definition. Errors and delusions are hardly in the same category as deliberate deceptions, are they?

Quote:
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?
That parts of Barrett's statement were demonstrably untrue.

That is a fact which suggests to me, if not to you, that nothing he ever claimed should be considered reliable without reliable independent support. We don't need to know if he was in error, deluded, confused or lying about every tiny detail of his supposed involvement, to know that he got stuff wrong at the time of his most formally made 'confession'. This was his best shot and he fluffed it.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2739  
Old 01-11-2017, 11:51 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
No. Once again, David, I would be much obliged if you would stick to reading what I wrote and not go off on flights of fancy concerning what you presume I was presuming.
I wasn't going off on any flight of fancy in the question I asked you about your views on this matter, Caz. The reason for asking that question was that it has been very hard to work out what your views are.

In answer to my initial question as to why Barrett wanted a Victorian Diary with blank pages, you said:

"I have no idea why Barrett wanted a diary with blank pages" (#2272)

In your second attempt you adopted a suggestion offered by Iconoclost when he said:

"He wanted to write out the journal in another document and take that to London rather than risk the original".


In response to his post (#2361) you said "I think your interpretation is a definite possibility". So in addition to working out what you were trying to say I also needed to work out what Iconoclast was trying to say. All you said about the matter in your post was: "He may have wanted enough blank pages to copy out some particularly significant parts of the text, to give Doreen a taste of what he had on offer and guage her interest, before parting with the 63-page guard book itself."

My response to this was to ask: "You do realise that you are suggesting here that Barrett was intending to present Doreen with a forged 1888 diary written by Maybrick?"

It was in the form of a question because I could simply not work out what it was you were saying, or rather what it was you believed Iconoclast was saying. And the reason I framed it like this was because the alternative, namely that Barrett was intending to present Doreen with a Victorian Diary containing text in his own handwriting, struck me as inconceivable.

Your response (#2629) was "No, I wasn't actually, David" without any further explanation. All you said was "there has to be an explanation plausible or not if the bloody thing came into Mike's hands after emerging at some point from Maybrick's house".

This brings us to the present day. I asked you a further question:

"But Caz you were suggesting that Barrett was intending to write out the text of the diary (presumably in a Victorian style handwriting), to show Doreen as if it was the actual 1888 diary of James Maybrick weren't you?"

That is what you describe as a flight of fancy but was, in fact, me trying to get some clarification, by way of a question, as to what on earth it was that you were saying. For the first time you have provided an explanation of what it is you mean. I'll deal with it separately but it is, I think, fair to say that your explanation makes absolutely no sense.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2740  
Old 01-11-2017, 11:56 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Again, no. Not if Doreen asked him anything about the physical book he already claimed to have in his possession, how he knew it was a diary from the right period, and the nature of its contents.
Given that we don't know if Doreen asked him any such questions and, if she did, whether he simply gave evasive responses, that doesn't strike me as much of a response. But given further that he couldn't have had the 1891 Diary in his possession when he spoke to Doreen, the above statement (made in response to me saying that he would have had to remove traces of it being an 1891 Diary) doesn't actually make any sense unless you are suggesting that he might have told Doreen that the Maybrick Diary was labelled as an 1891 Diary.
__________________
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 08:45 PM.


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