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:
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - by TradeName 26 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - by TradeName 52 minutes ago.
General Discussion: The Weapon - by Herlock Sholmes 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 6 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Trevor Marriott 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (12 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (2 posts)
Ripper Notes: Status of Ripper Notes? - (2 posts)
General Discussion: The Weapon - (2 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (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
  #3251  
Old 04-03-2017, 07:20 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 caz View Post
Much as I would hate to disabuse you of the notion that my kind of thinking has had that kind of influence over every other person's thinking apart from your own, I do wonder whose intelligence you imagined you were insulting here.
I hope everyone appreciated I had my tongue firmly in my cheek there.

I don't for one second think David meant that my own thinking had influenced, never mind prevented, anyone else's. But if he is right about everyone thinking along the same lines as me when it comes to Mike's 'insane' 11-day wonder, it must come down to a case of great minds thinking alike - or fools never differing, which reminds me of a line from the tv sitcom 'Ever Decreasing Circles' about being the only one in step.

Are you the only one in step, David?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3252  
Old 04-03-2017, 08:42 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
We seem to be going in circles, back onto points that have already been discussed. Caz, no doubt, has a perfect memory and remembers events in her life and the order they occurred with perfect clarity. But ask her to put herself inside the mind of a shambolic drunk who has a bad memory to start with and she simply can't do it.
David shows here how easy it is to forget one's own arguments. He forgets that this same 'shambolic drunk who has a bad memory to start with' is meant to have suddenly regained perfect recall in the middle of his affidavit regarding precisely how many days he and Anne had spent [nearly three years previously] copying out the diary into the guard book. Aside from this moment of perfect clarity regarding the 11-day wonder, he is allowed to wallow in the alcohol-induced haze which leaves him unable to tell the difference between two days, two weeks, two months or even two years.

Remember, Mike only had to recall having received the red diary a couple of weeks before his appointment in London (if not the year this happened), and he'd have known how long he could afford to give himself and Anne for the task, when claiming this as evidence of their intentions.

Summing up, I can't see how it can be argued that, on account of his poor memory in 1995, he was unlikely to have come up with 11 days unless it was the truth and he actually remembered it taking that long, even though three years had in fact now passed. Isn't there a fatal contradiction here?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 04-03-2017 at 08:45 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3253  
Old 04-03-2017, 09:47 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 caz
If he had more than enough time at this crucial final stage of the process, why did he not remove all traces from the inside cover of the guard book, where he claimed more photographs had been mounted? If he dealt with all those inside the book by hacking out all the pages containing them, why was he worried about a little more defacing to remove any remaining signs of its potentially post-Victorian usage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by caz
Fortunately for the Barretts, nobody knows for sure if there were any photographs to remove, nor if the book was originally home to photos, business cards or Victorian cartes de visite. The traces left behind, contrary to what we have been assured in the past, are perfectly consistent in nature and size with items known to be from the right period. I have a small album of maternal family photos dating back to the 1860s, some of which were cut to fit the individual mounts while others fit snugly without the need for any cutting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Of course those traces will be from the right period. The question is why were they removed along with the pages, and who did this.
You may have misunderstood, David. I was referring here to the traces that have not been removed, which at one time were said to have been left behind after post-Victorian photographs had been removed from the inside front cover by the forger. If they had been photos from WWI, as Mike claimed in his affidavit, the traces would not have been from the right period either, yet he presumably had time to remove all remaining traces if he wasn't sure of their origins, but did not do so.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 04-03-2017 at 09:51 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3254  
Old 04-04-2017, 05:07 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
You claim that I asked "does Keith still hold to his 2007 opinion on the strength of the Battlecrease evidence?" and that you responded "Yes he does". This is completely and demonstrably untrue. I love the way you describe it as you saying this "in no uncertain terms". You never said it! You are imagining it!
Your trouble, David, if you don't mind my saying, is that you take everything so literally that if I wrote one day that you had a bee in your bonnet, and the next day claimed I had said you had something to get off your chest, you'd accuse me of 'never saying that' and 'imagining it'. This is how I actually phrased my precis of our somewhat lengthier dispute over Keith's 2007 opinion and whether it had remained the same ten years on:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by caz
...you seem perfectly happy to rake over the whole "does Keith still hold to his 2007 opinion on the strength of the Battlecrease evidence?" question, which both Keith and I answered you in no uncertain terms with "Yes he does".
You will note I did not in fact claim that you had 'literally' asked this specific question, but described it as 'the whole.... question', resulting from me pointing out that Keith's opinion had remained the same ten years on, and you expressing doubts and loftily announcing this was clearly no more than an assumption on my part. That is why I asked how exactly I was meant to convince you. The upshot, as you know full well, was that Keith felt obliged (or was 'literally forced', if you prefer your own more colourful vernacular) to reassure you - privately - and make it clear that his opinion had not changed and that it was no assumption on my part that it hadn't. If you were still unsure about my own "Yes he does" position, from what I had already posted and from Keith's confirmation, I am genuinely perplexed if not literally gobsmacked.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 04-04-2017 at 05:16 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3255  
Old 04-04-2017, 06:37 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
Obviously I don't think that a transcript was prepared in March 1992 because my view is that the Diary was not completed until April.

What I have been trying to establish from you is this: If Mike was (hypothetically) in the process of preparing a transcript, would it still, in your view, have made sense for him to hunt for a Victorian diary into which to write extracts?

If the answer to this question is "yes" then frankly it doesn't matter whether a transcript was or was not, in fact, in the process of being prepared. But I don't know if your answer is "yes" or "no" because you haven't told me.
I don't recall if I have already responded to this one, but the problem with your question is that Mike's hunt began very shortly after his first conversation with Doreen, but we seem to agree that it wasn't a chicken and egg situation, in that the process of typing the transcript would have begun later. So the question as it is worded does not apply, because he needn't have had a transcript in mind when he made the telephone enquiry.

Incidentally, it's interesting if you think the transcript was prepared after the diary was completed. Obviously I do too. But I seem to recall many a modern hoax theorist before you assuming the transcript came first and was the famous draft allegedly produced on Mike's equally famous word processor back in the late 1980s.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 04-04-2017 at 06:40 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3256  
Old 04-04-2017, 07:27 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
Are you really saying that you believe the Diary is an old hoax but, despite stating this opinion on the forum, and despite saying "it has to be an old hoax", you've never claimed it's an old hoax?

I mean, surely everything that anyone states or claims on this forum about the origins of the diary is their belief, their view, their opinion, their take and nothing else. I was hardly saying that you claimed to have been around at the time of its creation and witnessed it being written with your own eyes!

Semantics and pedantry is one thing Caz but you seem to take it to an extreme level. In Caz Land perhaps you've never stated that the diary is an old hoax but here in Normal Land you've done it time and time again.
Blimey, David. If you think I take semantics and pedantry to an extreme level, I must have been taking notes from the master.

But seriously, you can have no idea how many posters have been hotly criticised over the years by their fellows for not making it clearer when they are stating something as a definitely ascertained fact and when they are merely offering their considered opinion. Try the Lechmere and Hutchinson threads for starters! That is why I try very hard not to 'state' what the diary 'is' or 'isn't', without making it clear it's my personal opinion. Others have not always been so strict with themselves, happily announcing that it 'is' the real thing, or 'is' a modern fake, and I don't care for being lumped in with them if it's all the same with you.

So in future perhaps you would do the decent thing and not quote me selectively as you chose to do above: "it has to be an old hoax", when you knew (because you managed on the previous occasion to quote me more fully) that what I actually wrote was:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam
"My take is that it has to be an old hoax" (13 October 2016 #1995)
Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 04-04-2017 at 07:29 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3257  
Old 04-05-2017, 03:57 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
Doreen vaguely wrote to 'Mr Williams' that she looked forward to meeting him 'in due course' and, at a subsequent point in time, possibly as late as 10 April (but we just don't know), Mike telephoned her again and they agreed to meet on 13 April, which meeting was confirmed by way of a second letter.
Checking my records, David, I see that Doreen's letter to Mr Barrett, confirming the date and time of their meeting on Monday 13th April, was dated the previous Wednesday, 8th April. At some point before the letter was written, Mike must have revealed his real name to Doreen, and the date and time of the meeting was presumably discussed and agreed between them.

If the 11-day creation is meant to have begun - at the earliest - on Tuesday, 31st March (the same day as the O&L auction you kindly pinpointed for us on your related thread), the diary would still have been in the production stage when Mike agreed to travel to London with it the following Monday, and would not be completed until the Friday beforehand, 10th April.

Are you still happy with the timing, according to Mike's affidavit?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3258  
Old 04-05-2017, 04:16 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
I thought his story was that he was given 50 by Anne's father which means he certainly did splash out on the guard book.

I really don't understand the distinction you make between Anne's money and his money. It was the Barretts money wasn't it?

And there was no way he was going to know if Doreen's interest would survive UNLESS he caught the train to London. But I don't know Caz, perhaps he dodged his fare and sat in the toilet when the guard came round. Or perhaps he borrowed some money from his wife. Or his father-in-law. Or a friend. Or he sold some scrap metal. Or perhaps he had money from the social security. Or perhaps a friend drove him down. Or he took the coach.

Who cares about the bleedin' train fare?!
Nobody apparently.

But methinks you protest a little bit too much, considering your only explanation for Mike contacting a literary agent [and claiming to have the diary in his possession, ready for inspection] before he even knew if a suitable book could be obtained to house his forgery, was that he wanted to save any unnecessary expense until he knew if there would be any interest in the lengthy handwritten confession by Jack the Ripper he'd already researched and drafted!

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3259  
Old 04-05-2017, 05:19 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
Your whole point, that you keep repeating, about consecutive pages completely ignores the fact that the first words of the advert were for an "Unused or partly used…" diary. Now an unused diary must have consecutive pages all the way through. A "partly used" diary will almost certainly, up to a 99% level of confidence, have consecutive blank pages at the end because the partial usage will surely be at the beginning. In other words, a diary that someone started but did not complete. So the word "consecutive" in the advert would have been unnecessary (but might have increased the cost of the ad).
Except if I recall correctly when I was shown the offending object several years ago, it is akin to a little appointments diary for 1891, with entries scattered at random, leaving the unused pages neither consecutive nor all at the end. It certainly wasn't suitable for anyone to write at any length about their day or their feelings. [I'm sure I've said all this before.]

The kind of diary you are thinking of, and what presumably Mike was thinking of, that someone might start but not complete [with personal memoirs or recipes for example - or the mad ramblings of an arsenic eater] was a different beast, with entries dated or undated as the writer desired.

There was clearly a communication problem somewhere, if Mike was 99% confident that his request would be understood and would produce 20+ consecutive blank pages, in a late Victorian book that had been used as, or was suitable for, someone's personal journal. The enquiry was interpreted as a request for an actual diary as we would - up to a 99% level of confidence - understand it today, for recording the details of future events like - oh, a meeting on 13th April with one's agent about James Maybrick.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 04-05-2017 at 05:29 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3260  
Old 04-05-2017, 05:41 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
For the reason I've given above there was no need for the advert to say that the pages of an unused or partly used diary had to be consecutive.
But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so there was apparently every need.

Quote:
And I've already said that the diary did not need to be "at least" 6x6 if there was sufficient blank pages in a smaller diary. This measurement is something that you have conjured up from your imagination and would have been impractical for an advert. Demand at least a 6x6 diary and you've ruled out a perfectly good unused or partly used 5x6 diary haven't you? So your idea is broken.
Mike's idea was broken, you mean. Forget the year - 1891. The thing that arrived in the post was far too small and entirely unsuitable for any purpose you could think of in relation to 'the' diary, so the advert proved utterly useless, didn't it?

Love,

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


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 05:17 PM.


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