Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    This may be a silly question…

    Why do we imagine that Lord O of Stepney didn’t cut out the middle man and ‘prove’ that Ryan is the only possible source for the Maybrick element of the diary?
    Because he can't?

    Or is that a silly answer, Gary?

    Lord O tried it once with an auntie, and thought he'd got away with it.

    So then he had to rake through Mike's research notes, looking for clues which were never going to prove anything.

    Love,

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


    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      For once, RJ is not wrong.

      If Ryan had the right address for the undivided Battlecrease of 1889 [assuming No.7 did not yet exist as a separate address], while Mike got the wrong address in 1992 for where Maybrick had died [assuming he died in the part that had become No.7], and therefore inadvertently got the right address for Battlecrease as was [still with me at the back?], then I wonder how many more times he will manage to wriggle away from RJ and Orsam's clutches before they start to realise he was never in them?

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      Wasn’t Battlecrease a semi- in May, 1889?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        Did ye ever hear the storrry of the auld empty drrrainpipe, laddie?

        Do ye want to hear the storrry of the auld empty drrrainpipe?

        Well, there was nothing in it.

        Love,

        Caz
        X


        Cheers,

        Ike
        Iconoclast
        Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          For once, RJ is not wrong.

          If Ryan had the right address for the undivided Battlecrease of 1889 [assuming No.7 did not yet exist as a separate address], while Mike got the wrong address in 1992 for where Maybrick had died [assuming he died in the part that had become No.7], and therefore inadvertently got the right address for Battlecrease as was [still with me at the back?], then I wonder how many more times he will manage to wriggle away from RJ and Orsam's clutches before they start to realise he was never in them?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          I think - given the evidence - that the reality may well have been that:
          • Battlecrease in 1888 was No. 6.
          • There was already a No. 7 (unsurprisingly, next-door to it as you head down to the Mersey to throw your knife away)
          • When Battlecrease was split into two properties, the nearest side to No. 5 stayed as No. 6 whilst the other part had to become No. 6a due to the existence of No. 7.
          • At some point, No. 7 was demolished and No. 6a could then be reassigned as No. 7.
          I have no idea if any of this is true, but it seems to make sense of what we know from various address claims coupled with the insight provided by Florence Aunspaugh's various letters to author Trevor Christie in the 1940s (I think).

          Cheers,

          Ike
          Iconoclast
          Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

            Wasn’t Battlecrease a semi- in May, 1889?
            Hi MrB,

            Actually, despite my most recent post to the mooted contrary, you've jogged my memory that a solicitor (?) may have lived in the other half of the building at the time of Maybrick's death.

            Someone will remember where that little gem can be confirmed, though I have to say it would conflict with Florence Aunspaugh's memories of the building being one property when she was there (summer 1888, I assume).

            Cheers,

            Ike
            Iconoclast
            Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

              Hi MrB,

              Actually, despite my most recent post to the mooted contrary, you've jogged my memory that a solicitor (?) may have lived in the other half of the building at the time of Maybrick's death.

              Someone will remember where that little gem can be confirmed, though I have to say it would conflict with Florence Aunspaugh's memories of the building being one property when she was there (summer 1888, I assume).

              Cheers,

              Ike
              Thanks, Ike.

              Comment


              • It would be interesting to know if records exist somewhere to clear up such anomalies, such as precisely when the building - originally a club - was offered as two smaller properties for private rental, and if they were numbered at that time as 6 and 6a. This would make sense if all the properties on that side of the road had even numbers, or if there was already a number 7 on either side.

                If this was before the Maybricks moved to Riversdale Rd in February 1888, did the family rent one of these two homes or both, and what was the address of Battlecrease House? Morland believed it was 6a, suggesting they only rented the semi on the left, which at some point became number 7. But if Edwin was quoted correctly in 1889, he believed his own brother's address to be number 6, so it would be more of a surprise if Mike Barrett was not confused in 1992.

                The evidence I have seen indicates that by 1891 the house was indeed divided into two semis and numbered 6 on the right and 7 on the left. We also know that Maybrick's bedroom was on the left, in what became number 7.

                Can anyone help to establish the facts once and for all?

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Apropos this whole Battlecrease numbering issue, my man in the field FDC has fired me over the following interesting insights:

                  When you stand in front of the current entrance of n6 Riversdale road, you look straight at what I think was the service entrance in 19th Century. There was also a hedge that divided the domain at the street side. It is therefore logical for a doctor (Dr. Carter) in 1889 to enter the house through small door. (n6)
                  A large house had a main and a service entrance. So it seems obvious to me that both entrances were marked with n6? The staff and the common people could enter the domain through the still existing small entrance n6 (b?). Important people were invited through the now completely disappeared main entrance n6(a). (parcelled part) People knew which entrance they were supposed to take. The current entrance to Battlecrease house n7 Riversdale road, is foreseen after the reparcelling of the domain and did not exist in 1889. One can clearly see that an entrance has been made in the original wall on a later date. (n7) The old entrance (6a)? Riversdale road, was further down the street where the new apartments are now. Are there any photos or images from 1888 of the now-disappeared main entrance 6a to the domain?(seen from the street). Or the registers at town hall? This could provide a definitive answer about the numbering of the houses in 1889?


                  FDC attached a bunch of .pngs which, sadly, were too small to be seen but I've converted each to a .jpg so hopefully these will have a better resolution on screen ...

                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145139.jpg Views:	0 Size:	45.0 KB ID:	781152

                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145233.jpg Views:	0 Size:	243.6 KB ID:	781150

                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145418.jpg Views:	0 Size:	124.6 KB ID:	781148
                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145314.jpg Views:	0 Size:	138.5 KB ID:	781149

                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145253.jpg Views:	0 Size:	59.3 KB ID:	781153
                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145340.jpg Views:	0 Size:	107.3 KB ID:	781147
                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145358.jpg Views:	0 Size:	24.3 KB ID:	781154
                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145202.jpg Views:	0 Size:	105.3 KB ID:	781146
                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145108.jpg Views:	0 Size:	14.1 KB ID:	781155

                  Cheers,

                  Ike
                  Last edited by Iconoclast; 02-09-2022, 03:05 PM.
                  Iconoclast
                  Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                  Comment


                  • The newspaper post regarding the missing dog (Aug 1888) from somebody who I guess was a member of the household says it’s 6A

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	0CE7C486-E72A-468B-8683-FF5F6C99F02E.jpeg
Views:	1231
Size:	34.3 KB
ID:	781195

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                      Apropos this whole Battlecrease numbering issue, my man in the field FDC has fired me over the following interesting insights:

                      When you stand in front of the current entrance of n6 Riversdale road, you look straight at what I think was the service entrance in 19th Century. There was also a hedge that divided the domain at the street side. It is therefore logical for a doctor (Dr. Carter) in 1889 to enter the house through small door. (n6)
                      A large house had a main and a service entrance. So it seems obvious to me that both entrances were marked with n6? The staff and the common people could enter the domain through the still existing small entrance n6 (b?). Important people were invited through the now completely disappeared main entrance n6(a). (parcelled part) People knew which entrance they were supposed to take. The current entrance to Battlecrease house n7 Riversdale road, is foreseen after the reparcelling of the domain and did not exist in 1889. One can clearly see that an entrance has been made in the original wall on a later date. (n7) The old entrance (6a)? Riversdale road, was further down the street where the new apartments are now. Are there any photos or images from 1888 of the now-disappeared main entrance 6a to the domain?(seen from the street). Or the registers at town hall? This could provide a definitive answer about the numbering of the houses in 1889?


                      FDC attached a bunch of .pngs which, sadly, were too small to be seen but I've converted each to a .jpg so hopefully these will have a better resolution on screen ...

                      Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145139.jpg Views:	0 Size:	45.0 KB ID:	781152

                      Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145233.jpg Views:	0 Size:	243.6 KB ID:	781150

                      Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145418.jpg Views:	0 Size:	124.6 KB ID:	781148
                      Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145314.jpg Views:	0 Size:	138.5 KB ID:	781149

                      Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145253.jpg Views:	0 Size:	59.3 KB ID:	781153
                      Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145340.jpg Views:	0 Size:	107.3 KB ID:	781147
                      Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145358.jpg Views:	0 Size:	24.3 KB ID:	781154
                      Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145202.jpg Views:	0 Size:	105.3 KB ID:	781146
                      Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2022-02-09 145108.jpg Views:	0 Size:	14.1 KB ID:	781155

                      Cheers,

                      Ike

                      Hi Ike

                      Great pictures, Click image for larger version  Name:	459FACBF-CEAF-4DAB-BF94-438B6042E2EF.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	90.4 KB ID:	781198 judging from the floorplan and your friends indicator on another pic I see Maybricks bedroom must be the room above the flat roof of the bay window on the front/left of the building?
                      Last edited by Yabs; 02-09-2022, 09:57 PM.

                      Comment


                      • My guess was that the house shown to the left of Battlecrease on the map was number 7 so Battlecrease had no option but to be numbered 6 & 6A once converted.
                        At one point the houses to the left of Battlecrease were demolished before the flats that stand today were built, which left the opportunity for 6A to be renumbered 7.


                        Also from Morland, this seems to confirm Battlecrease was two dwellings in 1888. Click image for larger version  Name:	1EA670C6-9C45-4528-A346-2B63DB8D8B65.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	41.6 KB ID:	781208
                        Last edited by Yabs; 02-09-2022, 11:33 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Yabs View Post


                          Hi Ike

                          Great pictures, judging from the floorplan and your friends indicator on another pic I see Maybricks bedroom must be the room above the flat roof of the bay window on the front/left of the building?
                          Hi Yabs,

                          Great spot re the dog and 6a Riversdale Road.

                          And, yes, it is my understanding that the room above the bay window was Maybrick's bedroom.

                          Cheers,

                          Ike
                          Iconoclast
                          Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
                            My guess was that the house shown to the left of Battlecrease on the map was number 7 so Battlecrease had no option but to be numbered 6 & 6A once converted.
                            At one point the houses to the left of Battlecrease were demolished before the flats that stand today were built, which left the opportunity for 6A to be renumbered 7.


                            Also from Morland, this seems to confirm Battlecrease was two dwellings in 1888.
                            I think you're right and then right again, Yabs!
                            Iconoclast
                            Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                            Comment


                            • But… when Fletcher Rogers died in 1891, his address was given as 7, RR. It was said he had taken over the lease of Battlecrease from Maybrick and had dropped the name in favour of the number.

                              And if by the house on the left we are talking about the one close to the railway, that appears on maps well into the 20th century.

                              Comment


                              • This is just a pure guess. What if there was a plot on RR which had been assigned the no. 7, but on which no house was ever built, so the number was up for grabs? When Rogers took over the Maybricks’ former residence he not only dropped the Battlecrease name but also the number 6a and adopted the number 7 to distance himself from the previous residents.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X