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:
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by Varqm 60 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by DirectorDave 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (35 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (14 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (8 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Whitechapel Murders of 1888: Another Dead End? - (2 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (2 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
  #1391  
Old 03-13-2018, 05:59 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Hi Caz, I don't want to debate the accuracy of this statement, because I don't know enough about it. But the whole 'time sheet' thing strikes me as very odd, but perhaps I missed something. Because I don't get it. Here in the US we have something known as the 'Wage and Hour Board,' that insures that employers follow the labor laws, and the Board also arbitrates if there are any disputes over wages due to an employee. In the firm where I was employed for many years, I used to fill out the time sheets for 8 or 9 employees that worked under me, and it was very important to insure accuracy. Believe me, if any supervisor made a mistake, they heard about it from the head of Payroll. These records need to be precise. Further, I have a good friend who is in charge of payroll with another firm, and she constantly complains about having to correct the work of supervisors. It is a task of major importance to her and her boss to make sure everything is neat and clean. If, months or years later, there is a dispute about who worked what, the company needs to be able to demonstrate to the Wage and Hour Board that their records are accurate and can be trusted. Yet here, it seems as though Mr. Rhodes is "winging it." How would Eddie be correctly paid if his hours are not listed? And why does his job location even matter? Each employee has a time sheet and it lists the hours they worked and their pay rate. It's the only sane way of doing it. So what the heck is going on here? Were these sheets you are referring to made out for the benefit of billing Dodd for the labor costs on this particular project? Certainly Rhodes, or Rhodes's payroll secretary, could have produced a timesheet showing EXACTLY what hours Eddie worked on 9 March, 1992? If not, why not? It's all very mysterious.
Hi rj,

The time sheets Keith obtained were related to the job's location and description, and would appear to have been raised for the purpose of billing Paul Dodd for the hours worked [labour] and materials used. I will check the finer details when I get a chance, but IIRC Colin Rhodes, when speaking to Keith in 2004, explained there would originally have been daily working sheets for each employee too, which would have shown whether they had been allocated to a specific job, or were 'kicking their heels' in the office. In either case, Colin Rhodes would have been paying them a basic hourly rate, so he would sometimes ask them to help out on other jobs for an hour or two here or there, so he wouldn't be paying them for doing nothing, even though he wouldn't be billing the customer either for the extra labour.

I think James Johnston has these daily sheets down on his extensive 'to do' list, in case any may have survived. One thing that became apparent, when Colin handed over the Battlecrease and Skelmersdale time sheets to Keith, was that Eddie's final time sheet entry for the Skelmersdale contract was for Saturday, March 7th 1992, yet the contract had resumed on Friday, March 13th [following the scheduled Battlecrease job sandwiched in between, which had been allocated to Arthur Rigby and Jimmy Coufopoulos], with no further sign of Eddie. Colin was left scratching his head, because Eddie had only begun working for him in November 1991 and had been put on that job full time with Jim Bowling when it began in early December. They had worked solidly together there, right up to and including Saturday, March 7th, while others only worked on certain days or part days. It was a mystery to Colin why Eddie had suddenly gone AWOL before the job was finished, leaving Graham Rhodes with Jim Bowling to complete the work [with Alan Davies and Brian Rawes doing two hours each on Tuesday, March 17th].

What emerged was that nobody was on the Skelmersdale job between Monday, March 9th and Thursday, March 12th, so the two main players, Eddie and Jim Bowling, would have been 'kicking their heels' from the Monday, waiting for it to resume on the Friday, if only Arthur and Jimmy were down for Paul Dodd's underfloor wiring job.

None of this should have worked at all if Eddie didn't have the first idea who Mike Barrett was, let alone when he first mentioned the diary to anyone, and was simply trying to cash in on Feldman's baseless speculation that it might have been found in the house when work was being done there.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1392  
Old 03-13-2018, 06:30 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
You might as well get it straight from the donkey's mouth, caz. As I've said before, I wasn't born with the spelling gene (more of a numbers bloke) and when I'm lazy, mad, or have had a pint, I tend to 'go phonetic.' If what I've heard in the Alan Gray tapes is correct, the beer cans were flying, so it is entirely possible that laziness, anger, and/or intoxication may have all come into play during the creation of the diary's text. Pretty simple. By the way, I have a special present for you the day you correct the odd grammatical/spelling/typographical/logical errors of the "diary" friendly folk. I can't help but notice that these sly observations are solely reserved for the skeptics among us. I'll have to start examining your posts with a more critical eye. Have a good day again.
Sorry if I touched a nerve with my observation, rj, but I felt it particularly appropriate, given David's argument about Mike's 'diaryisms'.

If you - and I - and pretty much everyone on the planet can make silly mistakes when writing publicly like this, I have to wonder why the composer of what is meant to reflect the private ramblings of a nobody, whose formal education would have ended in his early teens, was ever expected to see teacher after school for his own lazy or incompetent written work. It seems like a hopelessly flawed argument to me, especially when it comes from equally lazy or incompetent writers [and don't worry, I don't put you in that category].

Have an excellent afternoon.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1393  
Old 03-13-2018, 07:44 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
By the way, caz. Your comments in post #1383 are entirely irrelevant. It makes no difference whatsoever if Barrett understood his contract. It makes no difference if he was justified or not in feeling screwed by the publishers. It only matters--and this is undeniable--that Mike BELIEVED that he was being screwed.
Agreed. And if he believed this meant he would be screwed the next time, and the time after that, and had no hope of beating the enemy, he may well have imagined that a confession to forging the diary might kill two birds with one stone: he could screw those who were screwing him by selling his 'story' and earning some of the money he imagined they had screwed out of him.

Quote:
It was two and a half years since he had brought the diary to London and he is being told that the royalty cheques are "in the mail." If he's a good boy they may even arrive by the summer of 1995. All that matters is that Barrett is as mad as a hornet, feels "hoodwinked," and this gives him a motive for "going off message" and dropping hints about the true origins of the diary.
But if you remember, he had received several thousand pounds in royalty payments in May 1994, the month before his first confession, and he had promptly withdrawn a thousand in cash every other day until he was back in the red. So while he may have been expecting a whole lot more, and considered he was being screwed at that point, it was also very much a case of 'easy come, easy go', by the look of it.

Quote:
The other key point is that he is CONFLICTED. The myth that he was desperately helping Gray to prove the Diary a fake does not take into consideration that he was playing both sides for himself. There is still a chance for a jolly pay day if the film is made. Mike admits in his affidavit of 25 January 1995 that he is willing to play nice again if the money rolls in! What more evidence do you need to realize that his whole motivation is financial? He confesses, he retracts, he tests the waters, he drops hints. It's undeniable.
How was Mike going to get his hands on any film money? The rights had been sold to Feldman by Robert Smith, very early on. What did Mike have to sell Feldman in 1995? I have no doubt that Mike was peeved over the money situation, but he didn't exactly help himself in that regard, did he? He ran up bills and got into debt all by himself. It doesn't make his forgery claims any more likely to have been based on the truth, as far as I can see.

Quote:
As for Graham, she remains your biggest headache.
You wish. If the diary, or anyone involved, had the power to give me a headache I'd have taken up knitting again instead. I remain fascinated by the human behaviour on display since 1992 by everyone who has involved themselves - and I do mean everyone.

Quote:
Her sudden 'in the family for years' story in 1994 makes no sense in relation to the diary being stolen out of Battlecrease, but not for the reasons you think. If Barrett bought it off Eddy (and he didn't, it's a post 1991 hoax) she could have simply denied knowing anything about it, or merely said 'yup, my ex hubby stole it, but that has nothing to do with me. Go talk to him.'
Right, so when Mike told the papers he forged the diary, Anne could have 'simply denied knowing anything about' him buying it from Eddie? How does that work? Assuming you mean she could have said: "He didn't forge it, he nicked it, but that's got nothing to do with me", yes she could. But would she really have wanted that avenue opened up again, months after Feldman had closed it down? She had signed the agreement with Shirley in 1992, on the understanding that Mike had come home with the diary one day in 1991, having got it in good faith from Tony Devereux. If she wanted to maintain this part of the story and her own credibility, while trying to keep everyone happy in the light of Mike's foolish outburst, her options were limited. She could wash her hands of Mike and his behaviour now they were separated, sure. But one of her options was not to wash her hands of any responsibility she had with Rupert Crew over the diary.

Quote:
Instead--SHE DIGS HERSELF DEEPER-by claiming 'ownership' of the thing for herself. 'I've had it since the 1960s.' Now tell me, caz, why would she do that? Strange behavior unless Barrett's confession was a little too close to the truth for comfort.
I've tried to give you my answer, an answer, but you are not really asking the right person, are you? It's strange behaviour whichever way you look at it. You have asked yourself, and given yourself an answer, without even considering why Anne would have imagined her 'in the family story' could possibly have shut Mike up, if they really had forged the diary together, and he was now spoiling for a fight to the death to destroy it, taking himself, his estranged wife, Feldman, Harrison and Smith down with it.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1394  
Old 03-13-2018, 08:21 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Maybe this will help, caz?

"It was about 1st week in December 1994 that my wife Anne Barrett visited me, she asked me to keep my mouth shut and that if I did so I could receive a payment of L20,000 before the end of the month. She was all over me and we even made love, it was all very odd because just as quickley (sic) as she made love to me she threatened me and returned to her old self. She insisted Mr Feldman was a very nice Jewish man who was only trying to help her. My wife was clearly under the influence of this man Feldman..."

Heaven forbid that I should suggest such a thing, but it sounds like Feldman is sending Graham over to influence Mike, and, as such, perhaps it might also be a rather convenient time to ask Mike if she might not retrieve her maroon diary? He then drops it off a day or two later.

This 'influencing session' was allegedly the '1st week,' of December. We know that the promised cheque for £20,000 doesn't arrive by month's end, because Mike is still raving about his royalty cheques. Five days later, Jan 5th, Mike fires his first volley over the bow of Feldman's boat by signing his first confessional affidavit. In that same affidavit he claims that Graham had recently re-acquired the maroon diary. Read between the lines. Funny how the chronology seems to work. Had I been part of Feldman's team, I wouldn't be too confident that Feldy was always playing it straight.
But did Mike really imagine that Feldman had anything at all to do with royalty payments from Shirley's book? Or was he so far gone by this point that only his paranoia is showing?

I wonder how the subject of the maroon diary cropped up in the first place. Anne must have remembered it, mustn't she? And this is what Mike claimed:

'My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address'. He could only have been lying here or mistaken if she asked for it while visiting him, as you suggest.

I could believe Anne might have called round to tell Mike what a stupid sod he was being, and reminding him that the book would only continue to bring in royalty cheques if he stopped his forgery claims. If Mike believed Feldman was pulling Anne's strings, it's easy to see how he would have interpreted the situation.

Seeing this through Mike's blurry eyes is possibly not a very productive way of getting at the truth, so I hope you'll forgive me for not finding any of this particularly helpful.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 03-13-2018 at 08:24 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1395  
Old 03-13-2018, 09:09 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The fact that I don't know what evidence Mike could have produced to prove he forged the diary is, of course, not problematic for the Barrett hoax theory at all. It is only problematic for those who tell us that Mike should have produced some evidence that he forged the diary. If there wasn't any evidence that he could produce he couldn't physically produce any, could he?
So David, just to clarify your own position, would you say that if there had been any evidence that Mike could have produced, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he either forged, or helped to forge the diary, he'd have done so?

Or can you think of any reason why he might not have produced it, if he could have done?

And given what you say above, about not knowing what Mike could have produced to prove his involvement, would you concede that, on its own, the acquisition of the little red diary in late March 1992 does not amount to proof?

You see, maybe I am every bit as thick as you think I am, but I'm struggling with the concept of an argument that relies on Mike being guilty of forgery, but being unable to prove himself guilty, because there wasn't any evidence he could have produced. While I can see that this doesn't mean his confessions can be presumed false, it doesn't even begin to demonstrate that they reflect the truth. For that, one does actually require the evidence to prove it, whether or not Mike had any chance of producing it himself.

If one can't use the absence of evidence to argue for Mike's innocence, you most certainly can't use it to argue he was guilty but maybe he just didn't have the means to prove it. But maybe I've misunderstood your position - yet again?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1396  
Old 03-13-2018, 09:40 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The Sphere book is clearly not physical evidence of Mike forging the diary. It proves absolutely nothing.
That could have been me talking, David. I think I love you.

Quote:
I love the fact that the red diary and the Sphere book are now said to be things which prove Mike forged the diary - yet when Mike refers to them in his affidavit as proof that he forged the diary they are dismissed as things which do not prove he forged the diary!!!
Well do forgive me, David, but I was waiting for the others to catch on. They always were regarded by others as physical evidence of a Barrett fake, but now you have argued that Anne was in no danger at all from either of these books, and Mike apparently used them in the absence of being able to produce any actual proof, I think we may have reached the same point. Without either of those things to prop up Mike's sorry affidavit of January 1995, I'm at a loss to know what evidence the Barrett hoax theorists are going to use now.

Quote:
If those two items do not prove that Mike forged the diary – which they clearly do not (and I have never said they do) – then Anne did not need to destroy them or fret about them (and that's if she even knew that the Sphere book – which Smith tells us Barrett did not even possess in March 1992 – was the source of the quote in the diary).
Totally with you, old son. Anne seems to have had no need to tamper with anything at all, to cover their tracks or destroy anything at all, nor indeed to worry about any possibility of Mike being able to demonstrate, with proof, that he forged the diary, with or without her help. There is an obvious reason why that might be, but I don't suppose our views are the same on that one.

Quote:
It takes us back to my original point. If physical items which would have proved that Mike created the diary (namely the auction receipt, the ink and the pens, the notes... and I can't really think of anything else) had been destroyed in or before April 1992 then there wasn't actually any easy way that Mike could prove that he was involved in the forgery of the diary.
But those things had to exist first, David, and without any evidence for them ever being in the Barrett home, you still have precisely nothing to go on, like the police when their lavatories were nicked.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1397  
Old 03-13-2018, 11:19 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 399
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
How was Mike going to get his hands on any film money? The rights had been sold to Feldman by Robert Smith, very early on.
Well, it appears that Barrett was seeking legal advice on that point. See his affidavit of 5 January 1995 and read between the lines. "My solicitors are now engaged in litigation."

But I'll play along. He has no chance of earning anything.

And Robert Smith convinced Barrett of the necessity of selling him the Diary for £1 (even though Feldy, through a 'front man' offered £15,000), and, in addition, Smith also sold the film rights to Feldman, leaving the Barretts (by your claim) out in the cold.

Hmm. So it would seem that Mike's statement on 5 January 1995 does, in fact, reflect his actual view of things.

"My inexperience in the Publishing game has been my downfall, whilst all around me are making money, it seems that I am left out of matters, and my Solicitors are now engaged in litigation."

Thanks. I am more convinced than ever that Barrett had a clear motive to 'go off message' in 1994-95 and start dropping hints while trying--but failing--to apply "leverage."

And of course those hints were ignored, dismissed, ridiculed, or not even properly investigated--sometimes not even until years later--because, after all, there is very little opportunity to be had in proving the diary is a modern hoax. Jesus wept.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1398  
Old 03-13-2018, 01:19 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

If anyone tries to tell you that Murphy's father-in-law, Mr Stewart, couldn't be questioned about the watch because he had dementia, you might want to refer them to page 43 of Inside Story where it is stated:

"Albert Johnson contacted Stewart by phone but the now elderly man, battling with the onset of Alzheimer's Disease, could only recall that he had bought the watch between ten and fifteen years previously from a man who had come into his shop."

This shows the importance of not relying on memory when providing information.

Another question about the watch is: who first saw the scratches? There is no definitive answer to this.

According to Inside Story, whose information was based on an interview of Albert by Howells:

"As Johnson showed his colleagues how to open the back and front ...the light from the window highlighted the scratches inside the back. It was the first time he had noticed them".

But did Albert spot them himself or were they drawn to his attention? It's not clear.

According to Feldman, this is what Albert told him over dinner at a local pub about the discovery of the scratches:

"Albert told his colleagues that he owned a Victorian gold watch and shortly afterwards took it into work to show to them. While they were examining the watch the light from the window seemed to show markings on the inside back."

So "they" were examining the markings. Not clear who saw them first from this account.

Then we have this from Harrison, based on what Albert's colleague, John, told her:

"Albert brought the watch in to show us….We could see the scratches but we couldn’t make them out. The light was bad so we said we'd take it over to the Science and Technology block."

So "we" could see the scratches but again not clear who first pointed them out.

All we seem to have from Albert in his written notes are:

"Bright light coming through window while having break. It was coincidence the letters were seen".

He doesn't say who they were seen by.

So the possibility of someone who knew they were there drawing them to Albert's attention cannot be excluded from these accounts.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1399  
Old 03-13-2018, 01:37 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The slow drip feed of information in a random and disorderly manner continues I regret to note.

Despite the obvious importance of the point and despite Robert Smith stating in his book that the timesheets "put Lyons in the clear as far as finding the diary in Battlecrease House on 9th March is concerned" we are occasionally given snippets, by different forum members, of what Colin Rhodes told Keith Skinner in 2004 in an attempt to show that Lyons is NOT in the clear as far as finding the diary in Battlecrease House on 9th March.

Yet because of the way the information is revealed we don't know if anything has been added or is a result of personal interpretation. For example, when we are told that Colin Rhodes was "left scratching his head" was this something that Rhodes said (or did) or was it Keith's interpretation of what Rhodes was saying or doing or is it a third party interpretation and Colin Rhodes was not scratching his head at all? We just don't know because we have not been provided with a full account of the information obtained by Keith Skinner from Colin Rhodes in 2004.

I would have thought this would be a perfect example of information which Keith Skinner could provide us so that we finally know what is going on.

We are told that Eddie "suddenly" went "AWOL". But is this true? Is this actually what Colin said? We are also told for the first time that individual timesheets which must have existed in March 1992 were NOT disclosed by Colin Rhodes to Keith Skinner in 2004. Why not?

What we seem to be told now is that there was some outstanding work after 7th March at Skelmersdale which was not completed until the period 13th to 17th March, presumably because Lyons had gone AWOL, the implication, I assume, being that he was fully occupied trying to sell the items they have found in Battlecrease.

But what I find a mystery is if there was work outstanding at Skelmersdale as at 9th March, why were Eddie and Jim at a loose end that day so that they were sent to Battlecrease? Or is the argument that for some reason there was no work to be done between 9th and 12 March and it was ready to resume on Friday 13th? But if that's the case why was there a pause on 9th March, the work having been full time until 7th March?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1400  
Old 03-13-2018, 01:47 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I think that what I have been saying about Mike's failure to produce evidence that could have proved he wrote the diary, or had some involvement in its creation, is crystal clear.

I haven't been making a positive point at all, merely responding to a claim that Anne must have been terrified in 1995 that Mike would produce some conclusive evidence and also to a claim that Mike should easily have been able to produce some evidence.

All I've said is that if a receipt for the scrapbook was destroyed or lost and if the ink and pens (and any receipts for them) were also destroyed, along with any research notes or other notes, then there simply would have been no physical evidence that Mike could possibly have produced which would or could have proved that he forged the diary or had some involvement in its creation.

That might well have been his dilemma in the face of so many people asking him to provide proof. He simply couldn't do it because there was nothing in his possession that could prove it.

I don't know what is difficult to understand about this simple point.
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 08:00 PM.


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