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:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by etenguy 2 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Batman 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 3 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Batman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (39 posts)
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (4 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (2 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: So what happened to that femur...? - (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
  #1711  
Old 05-21-2018, 10:49 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Those who have been paying attention will know that I have already sorted out the "mess" in Mike's affidavit. For example, he says he purchased a word processor from Dixons in 1985 but we now know it was in 1986 . He says that Tony Devereux died in late May early June 1990 when it was actually over a year later. He says that he decided in "November 1993" to claim that the diary was a forgery when this did not happen until the following year.

So there can be no doubt whatsoever that the chronology of Mike's affidavit is wrong and needs to be adjusted with known facts. Anyone who says otherwise and sticks rigidly to the dates in the affidavit is being perversely stubborn.

One known fact is that Mike bought a little red Victorian diary in March 1992, not in 1990 or 1991 as one might think from reading his affidavit. When we adjust the chronology to take that into account then we can well understand why he says it took 11 days to write the diary because this fits perfectly with the time between a likely acquisition of the scrapbook and the very first time the Diary was seen by anyone outside of the Barrett family.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1712  
Old 05-21-2018, 10:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Encouraging someone to "do something" with the Diary is the type of thing a friend would say when handing it over free of charge. It's not the type of thing said by someone trying to pass off a stolen item for cash. In that scenario the seller doesn't care what the buyer does with it, he just wants the money. So it would be very odd and unnatural for Eddie to have told his buyer what to do with the Diary.

In any case, there is not one jot of evidence from anyone in the entire world that Mike Barrett was a "drinking pal" of Eddie Lyons, something which seems to be a diary defender fantasy.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1713  
Old 05-21-2018, 10:52 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

David is not assuming that Eddie would have told Mike early on exactly how and where he'd got the diary. If Mike had truly had a "light bulb" moment in early 1993 he had already worked out that Eddie had found the diary in Battlecrease. So he's not going to go round to Eddie's house and accuse him of lying about that is he? If he told Feldman that's what he had done he must have been lying to Feldman.

But if Mike knew the Diary was a forgery then he might well have accused Eddie of lying, saying he would never do a deal, exactly as he told Feldman.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1714  
Old 05-21-2018, 10:54 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I really don't know if Eddie Lyons is steadfastly denying anything, not least because James Johnston is refusing to provide the full transcripts of his interviews with Eddie. If Eddie did find something which was not the Diary he might be refusing to admit to having found it for the exact same reasons that we are being told he refuses to admit to finding the Diary, namely that he sold it illegally. But the important word is "if". It is uncertain whether he did actually find anything.

I have no knowledge of Eddie referring to the diary as a book and no evidence has been provided of this. But it is unlikely for a journal or diary to have been described as a book by anyone who wants to try and convey information to someone else because the normal meaning of that is a printed book.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1715  
Old 05-21-2018, 11:27 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

So the truth is finally revealed that Melvin Harris's supposed claims about ink dating cannot be supported because only a summary of a letter he supposedly once wrote to Paul Feldman is available. This is ironic coming from someone who stresses the importance of quoting in full and in context. How do we even know the summary is accurate?

On the other hand, I have posted a quote from Melvin Harris in which he says, "I have to repeat that there is no known testing method that will date ink-on-paper."

I don't know why anyone thinks I have a full set of Melvin Harris's correspondence. I do not. I have never seen a letter written by him to Paul Feldman dated 23 July 1993.

Arguing about what Melvin Harris might or might not have said, however, is pointless because he is not the Lord Almighty. If a Diary Defender thinks that it is a simple matter for a document examiner to establish on Tuesday that a forged document had been written on Monday, then let that evidence be quoted from an expert in the field. And we can find out how it is done.

The huge mistake which I know the Diary Defenders make in their thinking is that they assume that a very recent forgery would be easy for a document examiner to expose so that they can say "This was written yesterday" or "This was written last week". But that's simply not the case. All they can test for is whether the ink is soluble or not and, if so, how soluble. Trying to date it is a matter of judgment but the best they can usually say is within the last few years.

Equally those Diary Defenders seem think it would be so much easier for me to argue in support of a forgery if the Diary had been written in 1990. It would not. An expert wouldn't be able to tell if it was written in April 1992 or April 1990. The technology just doesn't exist to do so, or rather did not exist in 1992 (because I have no idea what can be done today). To repeat, all they could do in 1992 is see whether an ink was soluble or not and how quickly the ink dissolved. As Baxendale told Harris:

"The pigments dissolved in distilled-water within seconds”.

And that's it!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1716  
Old 05-22-2018, 04:43 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Encouraging someone to "do something" with the Diary is the type of thing a friend would say when handing it over free of charge. It's not the type of thing said by someone trying to pass off a stolen item for cash. In that scenario the seller doesn't care what the buyer does with it, he just wants the money. So it would be very odd and unnatural for Eddie to have told his buyer what to do with the Diary.

In any case, there is not one jot of evidence from anyone in the entire world that Mike Barrett was a "drinking pal" of Eddie Lyons, something which seems to be a diary defender fantasy.
You wish.

Nobody suggested Eddie told Mike what to do with the diary. I expect Mike gave him some old chat about his "connections" and Eddie was happy enough to let him take the old book off his hands and do something with it, saving himself the job. "Just don't forget your mates when you make your first million, Mike, and remember, you didn't get it from me, right?"

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1717  
Old 05-22-2018, 04:59 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
David is not assuming that Eddie would have told Mike early on exactly how and where he'd got the diary. If Mike had truly had a "light bulb" moment in early 1993 he had already worked out that Eddie had found the diary in Battlecrease.
Not necessarily, David. He'd have had his suspicions, but if Eddie had told him nothing, he'd still have had to establish if his mate had ever actually worked in Paul Dodd's house. When Feldman later told Mike that an electrician was prepared to confirm he took the diary from the house, his suspicions would have been confirmed and that's when he went round to have it out with Eddie, at his girlfriend's Fountains Road address.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1718  
Old 05-22-2018, 05:21 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I have no knowledge of Eddie referring to the diary as a book and no evidence has been provided of this. But it is unlikely for a journal or diary to have been described as a book by anyone who wants to try and convey information to someone else because the normal meaning of that is a printed book.
But this isn't 'a journal or a diary'. To anyone coming across it, it's an old scrap book with writing in it and a single date right at the end. A scrap book [there's a clue here] is just as much a book as a printed book.

What information do you imagine Eddie would have been trying to convey? He was denying finding anything in the house, but when referring to the physical diary he called it "the book", which is exactly what it would have looked like to anyone seeing the scrap book for the first time, not knowing what might be in it.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1719  
Old 05-22-2018, 05:39 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Arguing about what Melvin Harris might or might not have said, however, is pointless because he is not the Lord Almighty.
Never a truer word...

Quote:
If a Diary Defender thinks that it is a simple matter for a document examiner to establish on Tuesday that a forged document had been written on Monday, then let that evidence be quoted from an expert in the field. And we can find out how it is done.

The huge mistake which I know the Diary Defenders make in their thinking is that they assume that a very recent forgery would be easy for a document examiner to expose so that they can say "This was written yesterday" or "This was written last week". But that's simply not the case. All they can test for is whether the ink is soluble or not and, if so, how soluble. Trying to date it is a matter of judgment but the best they can usually say is within the last few years.
Here we go again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer
"Ink chemists determine the age of ink by the rate of extraction from the paper and the percentage of extraction. They measure how fast the ink can be chemically removed from the paper and how easily it is remove. Ink dries chemically in approximately three and one-half years according to Erich Speckin. By using the rate of extraction, ink chemists can determine the age of the application of the ink within six months. After the ink has completely dried, the chemist can only state that the ink is over three and one-half years old."--Attorney's Guide to Document Examination by Katerine Koppenhaver (2002)
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Equally those Diary Defenders seem think it would be so much easier for me to argue in support of a forgery if the Diary had been written in 1990. It would not. An expert wouldn't be able to tell if it was written in April 1992 or April 1990. The technology just doesn't exist to do so, or rather did not exist in 1992 (because I have no idea what can be done today). To repeat, all they could do in 1992 is see whether an ink was soluble or not and how quickly the ink dissolved. As Baxendale told Harris:

"The pigments dissolved in distilled-water within seconds”.

And that's it!
Did things change that much between 1992 and 2002, when Koppenhaver published the Attorney's Guide to Document Examination?

Baxendale is not the Lord Almighty either, but readers would be forgiven for assuming that's exactly how David sees him.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1720  
Old 05-22-2018, 10:19 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Diary Defender Sleight of Hand number 277:

Apparently, nobody suggested that Eddie told Mike what to do with the diary. Except that it was suggested that Eddie told Mike to "do something" with it. Well that is telling him what to do with it!

And one day Mike asks Eddie for £25 for the Diary, another day they come to some kind of complicated licensing or profit share deal, but today the Diary is handed over for free with a vague promise of a percentage if Mike makes £1 million. The quote: "Just don't forget your mates when you make your first million, Mike, and remember, you didn't get it from me, right?" is the work of a writer of fiction based on no evidence whatseover. I didn't realise this was a thread for budding writers of fairy tales.
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 02:37 PM.


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