Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caz View Post
    You just have to have the common sense needed to dissect the coincidences and weigh up the chances, Mike.

    But you knew that already.

    Q1 : How and when did the electrician(s), who happened to be lifting floorboards in Maybrick's old bedroom in Aigburth on 9 March 1992, find out that Mike Barrett in Anfield had phoned a London literary agent on that same day about a diary, whose author, claiming to be Maybrick, would also claim to have left it in a place where 'it shall be found'?

    Q2 : How and when did Mike Barrett learn, that on the same day he phoned Doreen about this diary, there had been floorboards lifted in the bedroom where Maybrick snuffed it?

    Q3 : If they were in it together, how did the modern hoax conspiracy work, unless the electrician(s) and Mike knew in advance what the work would involve, how long it would take, and when it would be done? And how did they keep in touch that day, to check it had all gone to plan?

    Q4 : Why did Mike always deny this perfect provenance if he helped set the whole thing up with the electrician(s)?

    Any more questions?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    The better question is re: the supposedly true events on that day, the one being put out there by the believers, that the men found the diary, threw it into a skip, took it to town, had it looked at, then went to a pub outside of town, met Mike, showed it to him, and had him call London. And all this was done between, what, 4/5pm and when?

    Seems very unlikely that this was the actual true version of events, basically, there's not enough time in which to do it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Graham View Post
      Hi Caz,

      thanks for this. Understood. What about Dodd's saying that floorboards had been lifted several times since 1946? Did he indicate if that included Maybrick's old bedroom and/or his permanently-locked dressing-room?

      I just can't accept the timeline between claimed discovery and Barrett phoning Doreen Montgomery. T'ain't possible, unless they went to their local Rent-A-Timewarp dealer.

      Cheers,

      Graham
      I, too, find it less than likely.

      If the work was finished early, then maybe there was time, but otherwise, you simply cannot drive from Aigburth to town, arrange a swift meeting with some random bloke from an unnamed department, have him look at it, then get to Anfield (straight from there, or after going home, back to the company depot to clock-off?) and meet Mike, show him the book and have Mike call London.

      In reality, this isn't doable.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Monty View Post
        Ah.

        So it's more a promo than a public release.
        Oh, undoubtedly, Neil. Be that as it may, I'm just interested in seeing them.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • "We're going to argue like it's 1999"

          Oh god... the Diary ...again. Who'd have ever thought I'd miss Melvin Harris?

          Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post

          If they spent as much time answering questions as they do promoting cheap money-grabs, we'd all be a little bit better off.
          I find it amusing that it's the BOOK being published that's dismissed as this years cheap money grab, when there's so much tackier, money-grubbing Diary related events on offer. I mean if money-grubbing, promotion is your issue...

          But I do agree, the lack of question answering is quite annoying.

          Let all Oz be agreed;
          I'm Wicked through and through.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            Come on then, Mike. See if you can explain the coincidences in my last post away and use facts to come up with a plausible explanation of your own.

            Facts, mind.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Caz, my view is that it is a hoax, and a modern one. I have given enough valid reasons for holding this view, reasons which I'm still waiting for literally any believer to address, as opposed to meekly attempting to promote a book. I do not need to invent ideas for how it was written or when it was written, particularly seeing as I have made it clear that I'm not convinced on who wrote it, just that it was recent and a hoax.

            You, on the other hand, God knows what your actual opinion on it is, seeing as you spend so much time defending it, and doing a lot of reaching while doing so, I think you may be a closet believer, but you profess not to be. You need to explain how the events of 9th March add up if we're assuming it was done in the late afternoon.

            Aigburth to town during rush-hour, arranging a meeting with a random bloke at a random department in a random uni building in town, presumably back to the office to clock-off, then either home or to Anfield, meet Mike, was this meeting instantaneous? Apparently. Then Mike looks at it, and bang! on the dog and bone to London. What time are we on now, Caz? 10pm? lol. Yeah, seems legit.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Admin View Post
              At this time it is worth reminding people that Cobb and all Cobb enterprises are banned from being promoted on this board due to Cobb's behavior which includes among other things: calling the owner's wife a whore, threatening her with rape/violence depending on your take, and ludicrous and pathetic blackmail attempts against Rippercast and Casebook. We don't care if Cobb discovers the answer to Jack the Ripper himself - integrity is more valuable than profit. Don't mention him, don't promote his businesses. Period. Once he's handed over the documents to a flunkie to upload them for him, discuss the documents. Don't test us on this.
              Thank you. Hopefully we shan't see any more pathetic and blatant attempts by some posters in here to sell this meaningless book to those of us who do not come here to be solicited.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                Oh, undoubtedly, Neil. Be that as it may, I'm just interested in seeing them.
                It's that kinda attitude which enhances the subjects poor external reputation.

                Hey, who gives a sh*t, right?

                Monty




                Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Why not? One of the electricians, who claimed in July 1992 to know that something had been found under the floorboards in the house [before the general public even knew that Mike had a diary which was in the process of getting published], just happened to live on the same road as Tony Devereux and drank in the Saddle, where Mike would go for his liquid lunch while waiting to pick his daughter up from her school nearby.

                  T'aint rocket science to imagine this electrician popping to Battlecrease to see his mates there, who show him the last page of an old book they just found, then he goes back home and has a swift half in the pub and Bob's your Uncle - Mike finds out enough about it to whet his interest and try to whet Doreen's.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  You expect anyone to believe this nonsense, Caz? First off, any actual evidence that this happened, or is this like the time you told me that the Post Office Tavern could've presumably been known as the Poste House, despite history not having any proof for that whatsoever?

                  You seem to spend a lot of time connecting dots with imaginary lines, and ignoring actual probabilities in favour of maybes. Yet you say that believers genuinely weigh up evidence and divide chance using logical steps? Yeah, pull the other one.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                    If the work was finished early, then maybe there was time, but otherwise, you simply cannot drive from Aigburth to town, arrange a swift meeting with some random bloke from an unnamed department, have him look at it, then get to Anfield (straight from there, or after going home, back to the company depot to clock-off?) and meet Mike, show him the book and have Mike call London.

                    In reality, this isn't doable.
                    Or feasible. If you'd genuinely found such a book at the site of a famous Liverpool murder, why would you want to get rid of it so quickly, if at all? Why didn't they show it to Paul Dodd?
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by peg&pie View Post
                      It's clearly not impossible for the diary to have been found on the morning of the 9th, and made it's way into Mike's possession by mid day or early afternoon. Surely this is obvious to all?

                      What time did he telephone Doreen? I'm uncertain as to this.

                      Were Mike's phone records ever looked at?

                      Imagine if you will, and I have no idea as to the proposed events that morning, the possibility that proof yet exists.
                      If an electrician friend of Mikes phones him that morning to meet up at the pub to take possession of a package, imagine that the records of this call could exist. If the number calling could be identified to one of the electricians, or the phone box around the corner from Maybricks house....

                      I would find this very compelling and may even slip over to the pro diary side. Just a little.
                      We'd need a record of the clocking-in and clocking-out times of the men working at Battlecrease, because if they found it in the morning, it's unlikely that they'd be granted permission to whiz into town to arrange a meeting with a random bloke from the uni.

                      More likely, any of this would have to take place after said work was complete for the day, making the timeline more of an issue.

                      I can't get into town, from the exact same area as them, in less than 30 minutes during rush-hour. It isn't possible, Aigburth road is far too hectic during those hours, as is Park road.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                        Thank you. Hopefully we shan't see any more pathetic and blatant attempts by some posters in here to sell this meaningless book to those of us who do not come here to be solicited.
                        I think I might owe Mike an apology, I thought the book that he was referring to before was the book on this thread, Robert Smith's which is of course a completely different book than the " pamphlet" that is being sold in association with another money grabbing event. Got my wires crossed.

                        Let all Oz be agreed;
                        I'm Wicked through and through.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          One thing that has always 'bothered' me when people say that the text of the diary could easily have been composed using 2 or 3 source books is the fact that in none of them would a murder in Manchester have been mentioned. Why would a forger, knowing full well how many people in the world scrutinise and study these murders, invent another previously unknown one. Surely he was taking a needlesss, and some might say stupid risk considering that it would be obvious that researchers would try and discover this victim. Unsuccessfully as it happens. Surely he would just keep to the facts that he'd gleaned from the sources he'd used?
                          Detail, Herlock. Why would a forger add something unknown? Well, to make it seem more believable. When lying/hoaxing, it is beneficial to add seemingly useless detail, it is done to add credibility.

                          The cheating wife or husband may account for their late arrival at home by claiming they were out for a quick bite with a friend from work, "Oh, Sue had the BLT, but the bacon was burnt."

                          Adding extra detail is something anyone worth their salt in spinning yarn knows to do.

                          Also, bare in mind that there are countless books about murder in the 1800's in the North, Liverpool and Manchester, and these books are all available along with RWE, Slemen and other local authors. It is very feasible that another murder was randomly selected to add credibility, despite having no actual link with any Ripper crime.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            Hi Caz,

                            Has anyone ever researched how easy it actually is to forge a Victorian diary? We know that art forgers are highly skilled artists but what about this kind of 'forgery.' Obviously it's not just as simple as buying a Victorian-type ink and a Victorian book and off you go. How easy is it, for example, to fool the Ion Migration test which shows when the ink was applied to the paper?
                            It may be quite simple. It may not be. I don't know. Would Proffessor Barrett have known
                            How easy is it to fool a handwriting expert? Not very, and as far as I'm aware, any attention brought to the handwriting of May and the diary have concluded that they do not match.

                            On the other hand, we've been told that the ink in the diary was capable of being both recent and old. Make of that what you will.

                            Some will ignore the former and go with their preferred version of the latter.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post
                              Yes, and apparently James Maybrick had one. Not that it would matter if he did or didn't, because nobody in their right mind could interpret this as a serious intention to get Queen Vic on the blower.

                              I wonder how quickly Mike Barrett found out that Maybrick had one of these newfangled 'telling bones'?

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              Maybrick was a successful man, Caz. Successful people were the type to own such newfangled items as phones and automobiles, etc. You don't live in a house like that if you're not comfortable in the wallet.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                                It's that kinda attitude which enhances the subjects poor external reputation.
                                That's a bit harsh, Neil. You know that I'd be the last person to want to bring the field into disrepute. I'm just curious about the notes, that's all.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X