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 Discussion: The Weapon - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Trevor Marriott 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 5 hours ago.
General Discussion: The Weapon - by Geddy2112 5 hours ago.
Ripper Notes: Status of Ripper Notes? - by jmenges 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (12 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
  #1381  
Old 03-12-2018, 07:34 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. One last post. Here's one I don't think you and I have ever discussed. Mike again, January 5, 1995.

"When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. 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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX."

Yes, it's Mike, and must be accepted with utmost caution, but Keith did, in fact, retrieve the worthless diary from Anne's house a short time later. So, if Barrett isn't lying, why is Anne asking him for it before his January 5th confession?
I was wondering about this myself, rj, and I have no answer for you. The fact that Anne willingly handed it over to Keith, with enough information for him to trace its purchase, and eventually the advert put in on Mike's behalf, would suggest she wasn't trying to conceal or tamper with any evidence. As David concedes, she could hardly have been still in the dark about its original purpose, if she knew Mike had been looking for something to house their forgery around the time it would have plopped through their letter box.

Assuming she was aware [via Feldman, Doreen or Shirley] that Mike had been heavily into his campaign to 'expose the fraud' throughout the second half of 1994, by claiming inside knowledge of it [his discovery of the Crashaw quote being the most obvious example], is it possible she wanted to keep the red diary safe from tampering by Mike, aware that he may still have it and knowing he might use anything he could lay his hands on to help him do so? It seems to have backfired because Mike very shortly afterwards introduced the red diary for the first time into his forgery claims. Was this just one more of those odd little coincidences, or was it Anne's recent request for it, which reminded him of its existence and gave him the idea to use it in a 'light bulb' moment? If he was already preparing to do so, when Anne decided to ask for it, why on earth would he have parted with it? Has the obvious been staring us in the face here? Did the usefulness of this little red herring only dawn on him after he'd handed it over to Anne?

Quote:
And even stranger, if she asked for it, and ultimately came to possess it, why on earth did Mike hand it over, if this could be a worthwhile exhibit in his "desperate" attempt to prove the diary was a forgery?
Exactly, rj, which is why I wonder if this only occurred to him when he had already handed it over and started thinking about it again, for the first time since Anne had thrown that cheque at him in May 1992.

May I ask what your answer is?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1382  
Old 03-12-2018, 08:49 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
Only just noticed this when RJ posted the above extract from Mike's affidavit. Yet another diaryism.

E.g.

"They will suffer just as I"

"It is I that should question him"

"they deserve that at least from I"

"it is the whoring bitch to blame not I"
Hi David,

All from the same post by rj;

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
I made reference on Tape that the hatred between Ann Barrett and I must stop.
Quote:
much to my regret but at the time I did not know what to do.
Quote:
The letter from Gray quoted in Shirley's book (Blake) clearly eludes to a confession-for-profit scheme, so if Barrett decided to stop drip feeding his confession to Gray, it hardly surprises me, since Gray couldn't offer him anything like what he could have made off the Diary.
The misuse of 'I' is jarring, but fits with "Sir Jim's" massive ego and minuscule awareness of proper English.

The word 'regret' also features a lot in the diary, but which came first - the diary or Mike's turns of phrase as documented after its emergence?

I seem to recall you have argued more than once that comparing any of Mike's literary efforts from after 1992 with the diary [such as Professor Canter's experiment, inviting Mike to write something in the style of the diary], was a useless exercise, and that we need examples of his use of English from before 1992, before we can say with any authority [as Melvin Harris did] that he didn't have 'the capacity'. Does that not also apply to Mike's many documented 'diaryisms', which might reasonably have been the result of his claustrophobic relationship with the diary after March 1992, living and breathing it day and night if only to meet his contractual obligations to Shirley to help with her research for the book? Would he not inevitably have picked up some of the more repetitive words and phrases and used them in everyday conversation?

When Mike taunted Alan Gray in 1998 with: "Ha ha ha, I give my name to history, what love can do to a gentleman born" [sic], which impressed Gray so much he finally said he was "going now before I kick the **** out of you", was this evidence of Mike's voice in the diary, or the diary's malign influence on Mike?

What do you make of rj's use of 'eludes' to mean 'alludes', while the diarist makes the opposite blunder towards the end, when the courage to take his life 'alludes' him?

Is rj too influenced by the diary's eccentric use of English, or did he have a hand in it?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1383  
Old 03-12-2018, 09:36 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
A number of explanations for Mike's confessions have been given, none of them particularly credible...

1. One early explanation is that Mike was simply drunk...

2. Anne Graham's explanation. Anne's explanation for Barrett's original confession in July, 1994 was that Mike was trying to get 'at her,' for leaving him. Okay. Jealousy is a motive, it might be worth a look. But it still seems a bit iffy. Why get 'at her' by cutting his own throat?
Hi rj,

It is sadly all too common for husbands who have been dumped to lash out in irrational ways which include self destruction. At least in the case of Mike, Anne and Caroline, the harm done was mainly to the diary and to Mike himself.

Quote:
3. Mike hated Feldman...

...But again, Mike is going against his own self-interest. Wasn't there some other way to get at Feldman besides derailing the diary and his own potential earnings? The old tried-and-true method of punching him in the nose or keying his car?
But how would that have helped, if Mike had got it into his befuddled head, as he seems to have done, that Feldman and his ex wife were now working together towards making a film which aimed to prove that his daughter was a direct descendant of Jack the Ripper?

Quote:
1. Mike Barrett affidavit #1. 5 January 1995. "There is little doubt in my mind that I have been hoodwinked or if you like conned myself. 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. I have even had bills to cover expenses incurred by the author of the book, Shirley Harrison."
It seems to me that the problem here was Mike's inability to understand his own contractual obligations to share with Shirley both the research for the book and all the expenses along the way, which ended up including hefty legal costs incurred in its tortuous journey to publication. When he received the royalty statements, and compared the gross amount with what he actually received after all those deductions, he assumed he was being mightily stuffed by Smith and Harrison, who he imagined were laughing all the way to the bank. Add that to the stuffing he had received from Anne and Feldman combined and you have a recipe for revenge against everyone concerned. He may well have thought by that point that he could kiss any fat future royalty cheques goodbye if he was being conned by all those holding the purse strings. If he didn't have a great grasp of the financial considerations, he'd have felt out of his depth and helpless in addition to his domestic misery.

Does this make any sense to you, rj? That if he believed he was being conned out of his rightful share of diary money, and was being shafted by Feldman and Anne over the diary itself, he might just as well bow to the big guns who were shouting "Fake!" and "Fraud!" and walk away with something - a big two fingers up to 'em all for having conned those who were now conning him, with a diary he had written himself - with Anne's help of course, just to rub salt in their collective wounds.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 03-12-2018 at 09:38 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1384  
Old 03-12-2018, 09:52 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
What do you make of rj's use of 'eludes' to mean 'alludes', while the diarist makes the opposite blunder towards the end, when the courage to take his life 'alludes' him?
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1385  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:19 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 397
Default

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. 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. 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. As for Graham, she remains your biggest headache. 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.' 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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1386  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:42 AM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,734
Default

Good luck with that last question, Roger.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

Last edited by Hunter : 03-12-2018 at 10:46 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1387  
Old 03-12-2018, 11:49 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 397
Default

No, Hunter, I don't suppose I will receive an answer. But I still have hopes that David might receive an answer about Eddie's missing time sheet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I was wondering about this myself, rj, and I have no answer for you.
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1388  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:00 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I wasn't aware of having "conceded" anything about Anne's knowledge of the red diary. What I have said was that there was no chance that she knew about the advertisement. Why would she? It was a tool used by Martin Earl to obtain rare and specialist books on behalf of clients. So she would never had had a clue that anything she said to anyone about the red diary would enable the advertisement to be traced. What we do know is that she gave an explanation about why Mike obtained the diary which we now know to be false.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1389  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:07 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I'm quite certain that I've never said anything about Professor Canter's supposed "experiment" because I know nothing about it. Inside Story tells us that Canter assigned one of his linguistic students to make a linguistic comparison between Barrett and the Diary but I don't know if this anything to do with Mike being invited to write something in the style of the Diary. I thought I had read that Mike had produced some pages claiming to have been additional pages from the Diary but as we've never been shown these pages I have never commented on it.

Perhaps Keith Skinner (now that Chelsea have scraped a rare victory against one of the bottom clubs) will come out of hiding and explain what actually happened.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1390  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:13 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The argument that Anne wouldn't possibly have dared made up a story about the provenance of the Diary because she was afraid that Mike might at any time prove that it was a forgery strikes me as double edged for anyone who believes that the Diary came from Battlecrease in March 1992.

For Mike could, at any time, have surely admitted that he received the Diary from Eddie Lyons and Eddie and other electricians could (with the blessing of Paul Dodd) have supported this story with who knows what proof. Perhaps they would have produced the biscuit tin and a gold ring too. Perhaps Eddie had covertly recorded his conversations with Mike. How would Anne ever have known what they had to prove it?

The fact of the matter is that every single criminal in the world and every single liar in the world takes RISKS. There is always a risk they will get caught or found out. The concept of risk seems alien to some as if no-one would ever forge a document or tell a lie if there was a risk of discovery but experience tells us that this is not how the world works.
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 02:44 PM.


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