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:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Herlock Sholmes 44 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 49 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Herlock Sholmes 55 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Elamarna 1 hour and 29 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (27 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (12 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (11 posts)
Rippercast: Oh, Dear Boss: The Ripper Had All The Luck - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (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
  #1571  
Old 09-28-2017, 11:36 AM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
I

And what of Mrs. Barrett's asking her husband, "Did you nick it, Mike?" Nowhere in all of the discussion of this book on the forums have I remembered seeing that mentioned or discussed (not to say it hasn't been, just that I don't recall reading about it), and that is very interesting.
It has been discussed several times. However, that little episode was kicked into touch with the revelation that Anne Barrett later changed her story, and decided to reveal that the Diary had been in her family for years, and that she had given it to Tony Devereux to give to Mike Barrett.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1572  
Old 09-28-2017, 11:37 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
And what of Mrs. Barrett's asking her husband, "Did you nick it, Mike?" Nowhere in all of the discussion of this book on the forums have I remembered seeing that mentioned or discussed (not to say it hasn't been, just that I don't recall reading about it), and that is very interesting.
Oh I can assure you it's been mentioned and discussed PC Dunn. In fact, I asked another poster in another thread:

"So, given your personal experience of Anne, what is your conclusion as to why she asked Mike (in front of Feldman) if he had stolen the Diary? (i.e. "Did you nick it, Mike?")"

The answer was:

"Presumably because she was sensible enough to appreciate that people might suspect Mike of nicking it from somewhere (given the dubious 'dead pal' story) and she didn't want them suspecting her of being in on it."

So the answer then, as I understood it, was that Anne was trying to reassure others that Mike didn't steal it by asking him to confirm that he had not done so.

These days, however, we are, I think, being told that her question was equivalent to her saying she didn't know where it had come from, thus consistent with the Battlecrease provenance but inconsistent with her story that the Diary had been in her family for donkeys years.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1573  
Old 09-28-2017, 11:44 AM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

"By this stage Michael had not connected the Diary with James Maybrick."

Well if he hadn't connected the Diary with James Maybrick at the time Anne "transcribed" or typed-up or tidied-up his notes that it is odd because those notes start with information about James Maybrick!
What I can't understand is the fact that Mike Barrett continued to meet Tony Devereux after being given the Diary, and not once did Devereux reveal the supposed creator of the Diary. Surely Devereux must have known who had supposedly written the Diary, but not once did he give a hint to Barrett what is was all about, and instead let Barrett find out for himself who the "author" was.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1574  
Old 09-28-2017, 11:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
What I can't understand is the fact that Mike Barrett continued to meet Tony Devereux after being given the Diary, and not once did Devereux reveal the supposed creator of the Diary. Surely Devereux must have known who had supposedly written the Diary, but not once did he give a hint to Barrett what is was all about, and instead let Barrett find out for himself who the "author" was.
Well yes, perhaps in the original story, but the revised story is that Anne gave Tony the Diary tied up with string and asked him to pass it on to Mike (without Tony having even looked at it apparently).
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1575  
Old 09-28-2017, 11:53 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
Smith's commentaries and explanations seem plausible to me, particularly for "top" meaning specifically "to be hanged", so "top myself" would mean suicide by hanging.
My big concern with phrases like "top myself" is when did such slang become so commonly used that an average member of the British public would slip it casually into a short document? The same applies to "spreads mayhem" as well, which I still contend is being used in a mid/late 20th Century sense. Ditto "one-off instance", of course.

It's apparent to anyone who looks at the diary that the writer has a tendency to be very spontaneous in their writing style. That these three phrases should be used in such a familiar and off-hand manner indicates that they were a very natural part of the writer's usual vocabulary; I'd suggest that these phrases could not have reached that level of penetration into everyday British speech until the latter half of the last century.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 09-28-2017 at 12:00 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1576  
Old 09-28-2017, 12:33 PM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Well yes, perhaps in the original story, but the revised story is that Anne gave Tony the Diary tied up with string and asked him to pass it on to Mike (without Tony having even looked at it apparently).
Yes, equally unlikely.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1577  
Old 09-28-2017, 03:22 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Well yes, perhaps in the original story, but the revised story is that Anne gave Tony the Diary tied up with string and asked him to pass it on to Mike (without Tony having even looked at it apparently).
You mean, Either Mike was lying about the Diary and/or about Tony, or Anne was lying about Tony and/or the Diary, or Anne had been lied to by Tony, or Tony had lied to Mike, or the builders/electricians had lied to (or about) any of the above? Or any two or all three of them in combination? At various stages of their changing stories? You're telling me that's the provenance we have for this thing? A bunch of money-grubbing cretins who can't get their stories straight for ten minutes at a time?

You know what? I'm beginning to suspect it's a modern forgery!

I'm not kidding! I'd be willing to bet one of Mrs Flower's homemade custard tarts that this silly thing isn't the florid-yet-convenient written confessions of Jack the Ripper after all
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1578  
Old 09-28-2017, 08:16 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,643
Default

Thanks for the replies, all.

Who was this guy Tony, anyway, who supposedly knew Mike and may or may not have had something to do with getting the diary into his hands?
Was he the writing type?
If not the true author of the diary, did he conspire with that person to get the thing before public eyes?

Re Anne's own story of the book being a "heirloom", what is wrong with it being a lie she contrived in order to try to get back at Mike?

Finally, I am not sure I agree with Smith's explanation for the wait before the diary was taken to London to a literary agent. He says it was to allow for the typescript to be made, and to research both Jack and Maybrick. Fair enough, but why ask for a Victorian diary? Smith's idea that he wanted to see one for comparison purposes is weak, I think.
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1579  
Old 09-28-2017, 09:41 PM
peg&pie peg&pie is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Northants
Posts: 14
Default

It seems a vast amount of the back and forth is arguments about opinions and semantics.

Obviously I can't speak for others but I must say IMO, without cast iron proof nothing is proved.

I DO NOT believe the diary is genuine, but no amount of coincidences, luck or unexplained wording constitutes proof. Yes it heavily implies one solution but not definitively.

Science and learned men both get proven wrong from time to time as we learn more, we cannot be so conceited as to be right all the time. Learning is based on having an open mind receptive to being corrected.

I need to be 101% sure, I need the smoking gun.
I wouldn't want anyone convinced so easily either way on my jury!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1580  
Old 09-29-2017, 12:12 AM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 161
Default

One of the main concerns about the diary is that there are so many revised stories about its provenance, you don't know where to start. It's like as soon as one story starts having holes blown into it, Its " Ahhh but that isn't true, This is what really happened "
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 08:16 AM.


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