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: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Busy Beaver 11 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Busy Beaver 16 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - by Fisherman 33 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 1 hour and 18 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (52 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (15 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (14 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (11 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - (1 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (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
  #521  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:19 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Would it be presumptuous to ask, Caz, that you lay out briefly what you currently suspect to have happened? With the caveat that of course investigation is ongoing and the evidence cuurrently incomplete?
Yes, it would.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:24 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
May I just stop you there then?

Thanks, Henry.

It is indeed futile to discuss anything with people who invent absurd scenarios just so they can knock them down, such as the floorboards coming up 'about 50 seconds' before Mike phoned London. I thought you were better than that, Henry. Seems I was mistaken. Why would anyone do this, unless what has been suggested is not nearly absurd enough for comfort? If the floorboards need to be up first thing that morning, say by 8.30, before the wiring job can even begin, and Mike could be calling London when he gets home after collecting his daughter from primary school, which would be around 3.30, there would be seven hours between the two events. You can bet your arse that your 50 second scenario is 'not only unconvincing but actually counterproductive'. It's also unworthy of a gentleman and pretty unscholarly.

Question for the weekend:

How many electricians does it take to lift a floorboard? One? Two?

Presumably the same as the number of hoaxers it would take.

Love,

Caz
X
Oh Caz - the only regret I have about using 50 seconds as a facetious interim is that has allowed you to convince yourself that it sounds reasonable by comparison that the call was made later the same day.

Are you certain the floorboards were lifted by 8.30? Are you seriously suggesting that the diary was immediately found, perused in some detail, recognised as being an item of interest, and rushed post-haste to Mike Barrett down the boozer, who immediately phoned his people in London?

('Post-haste' isn't the wrongly alleged name of an old public house in Liverpool, btw, Caz, before you start getting anxious - that would be 'Ye Olde Poste House').

Seven hours my ass.

Last edited by Henry Flower : 01-19-2018 at 09:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:26 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaz View Post
Summed up the naysayers to a T !

Don't let them get you down, caz, and keep up the great work
yawn.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:31 AM
Kaz Kaz is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
yawn.
Get some vitamin D my ole flower...

and leave the detective work to us

Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:36 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Are you seriously suggesting that the diary was immediately found, perused in some detail, recognised as being an item of interest, and rushed post-haste to Mike Barrett down the boozer, who immediately phoned his people in London?
No.

By the way, the hoaxer spells post haste as poste haste. Silly arse.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:15 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 428
Default

Hi Henry--And don't forget, on that very busy day we also need to make time for Mike to squeeze in a call to Pan Books. According to his agent, Doreen Montgomery, Mike initially attempted to sell the Diary directly to Pan, who told him to 'find an agent,' hence his call to her on March 9th. So when did Barrett call Pan?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:57 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 428
Default

Hi Caz--Over the years, you've read quite a lot into the apparent fact that Anne Graham had initially refused to cash her royalty cheques. This is somehow offered up as "proof" that she wasn't involved in the creation of the diary, since she didn't try to cash in on it. Correct me if that's not your thinking.

Yet, in reality, isn't it likely that Anne was just following legal advice? She had recently left Barrett, who just as recently had confessed to perpetrating a hoax. Not long before, the police had been round. The threat of jail was real, or perceived to be real. If she knew the diary was a modern fake, then she would have been a fool to cash the cheques, as it may well have put her in legal jeopardy. As far as I see, if anything, her refusal suggests that she damn well knew exactly how the diary was created, and was probably scared silly.

But, I don't think I really have anything further to add to the diary threads. As far as evidence goes, it's not as "sexy" as the purchase of a blank Victorian diary, but I personally believe that Barrett coming up with correct citation of the Richard Crashaw quote proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he was involved in writing the text. In the years before Google, there was simply no way in Hades that Mike came up with that citation through "research." Have a good weekend.

Last edited by rjpalmer : 01-19-2018 at 11:59 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 01-19-2018, 01:02 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

And what, I wonder, does one make of Anne's reaction to Mike's reported claim in June 1994 that he had forged the diary?

According to the Liverpool Daily Post of 27 June 1994, which ran a headline "HOW I FAKED THE RIPPER DIARY", this is what Anne said:

"This is bull****. He told me he got the diary from Tony Devereux and that is all I know. He is now trying to get at me because I have left him. The whole thing is an absolute nightmare. But I will fight like a tiger to protect myself and my family against anything he says."

I have difficulty understanding this reaction if she either thought the diary had come from Tony Devereux or had been stolen from Battlecrease and given to Mike. In respect of the latter, a forgery story at least protected Mike from a charge of handling stolen goods. I also have difficulty in understanding this reaction if she knew the diary had been in her family for years and she had given it to Tony to give to Mike.

In all these scenarios, I just can't see how Mike claiming to have forged the diary was an attempt to get at Anne (or why she would have believed it was), nor why she felt she needed to fight like a tiger to protect herself and her family from Mike's claims. I mean, sure, if the diary had been in her family for years it damaged her own interests if it was thought a forgery but the whole point was that Mike didn't know this so how could he have been using the forgery claim to get back at her? Furthermore, in the very same quote she says that Mike told her he got the diary from Tony and that this is "all I know". Those are not the words of someone who felt she was ever going to reveal that she knew the diary had been in her family for donkey's years because it was such a blatant lie.

A certain person who, I believe, is well aware of this problem told us earlier in this thread (#54):

"I wouldn't claim to know how Anne's mind was working in the Spring/Summer of 1994, but as a woman who has been divorced myself, I can only imagine her reaction to Mike telling the papers that he had forged the diary himself! She must have worried initially that everyone would think she knew and had kept quiet."

I don't find that at all realistic. Mike was claiming at this time that HE and he alone had forged the diary. What kind of paranoid spouse would think that this meant that they were also implicated? I mean, seriously, Mike claims that he forged the diary, and was, as he said at the time, the greatest forger in history, and Anne is thinking that this means he is saying that she was also involved in the forgery?

It doesn't compute for me. But what certainly does compute is that if Anne actually had been involved in the forgery, then Mike's admission in a newspaper was way too close to the bone and her quoted response in the newspaper makes perfect sense. Equally, if their daughter had been aware of the forgery and had deliberately misled researchers about the Tony Devereux story it was potentially an attack on her too and Anne's reaction is understandable.

At the very least, Anne's reaction is perfectly consistent with the story that was subsequently to emerge in Mike's affidavit in January 1995. And I would say it is difficult to reconcile with any of the other scenarios.

One other point to note is that, following the Liverpool Daily Post story in late June 1994, it was the very next month (July 1994) that Anne suddenly confessed that the diary had been in her family since at least the 1960s and that she had given it to Tony to give to Mike. So from telling a reporter that she knew no more than that Tony had given it to her husband she was now effectively admitting that she had lied about that and knew a lot more of the story. Was she doing this, as has been claimed because she was under so much pressure to give Feldman a bogus story? Or was she being more calculated than this in order to deflect attention away from a forgery claim which had the potential to damage her and her family greatly?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 01-19-2018, 01:03 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Hi Henry--And don't forget, on that very busy day we also need to make time for Mike to squeeze in a call to Pan Books. According to his agent, Doreen Montgomery, Mike initially attempted to sell the Diary directly to Pan, who told him to 'find an agent,' hence his call to her on March 9th. So when did Barrett call Pan?
To which I would add, what time of day did he call Doreen?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 01-19-2018, 01:08 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default Found under the floorboards - 1889 material!!!

An newspaper from 1889 and some old cigarette packets have been found under the floorboards of Buckingham Palace during renovation work:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3744511.html

It is not known if an electrician made the discovery nor whether he mentioned to a colleague that it could be important.
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 03:12 PM.


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