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: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Sam Flynn 38 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Scott Nelson 1 hour and 10 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by jerryd 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (14 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (9 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
  #401  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:36 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The point is that Feldman connected the lifting of the floorboards with the discovery of the diary without knowing about the work carried out in Battlecrease on 9 March 1992. That's the whole point!

He believed that the floorboards were lifted in 1989, a full three years before Mike had taken the diary to Doreen in April 1992, yet he connected the two events. The floorboards, in other words, were already in play as a factor long before anyone knew or suspected that the floorboards might have been taken up on 9th March 1992.

That's why it is false argument to say that because some electricians mentioned a discovery under the floorboards then this is remarkable in view of the production of the 9th March 1992 timesheet. It's not, for the reasons I've already given at length.
Except that, as I indicated in my last post, if none of the electricians had the faintest idea who Mike was, or when he first told anyone about his diary, when they began talking to Feldman in April 1993, they wouldn't have known if this was before or after the floorboards had come up. If they read Shirley's book later that year, they'd have got the impression that he already had the diary in his grubby paws by the summer of 1991.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:41 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
There you go again, Caz. Why 'happily'? Why is that a prerequisite? Last week you used the word "willing[ly]."

Do you forget the solution I gave you 10 or 12 years ago?

In other words, you are assuming that Anne Graham's cooperation had to be happy and willing.
Hi rj,

Yes, in the specific scenario whereby Anne takes an active part in either the composition or the writing out of the diary. I'd have told Mike to take a running jump. He'd have been on his own. In fact, I'd probably have phoned Doreen myself and said: "Don't believe him. He might sound plausible but he's just a very naughty boy - and a compulsive liar to boot".

Quote:
Not so. I don't see it.

Indeed, the picture I see of Anne Graham portrayed by Feldman, Harrison, Skinner, etc., is of a very unwilling woman who, at one point, even wrestles with Mike on the kitchen floor. I believe that wrestling match occurred when she first learned that he was taking the artifact to London.
If it happened that way, doesn't it rather suggest that Anne wouldn't have helped Mike create it in the first place? According to David, the handwriting would only just have been completed, if it wasn't still being done, when Anne learned it was due in London on 13th April. She may not have been able to wrestle the book from Mike's hands, but she could have stopped him passing it off as a genuine Victorian diary, with a quiet word in Doreen's ear, in the unlikely event that she hadn't realised he was planning to do that when she helped with its creation.

Quote:
So how might it have 'worked'?

If the pious Ms. Morris will simply flip her hymnal to pg. 316 of the Diary of Jack the Ripper (Blake editon, 1998) she will find the correct solution to the mystery.

Shirley Harrison gives an amazing insight into Barrett’s modus operandi---a nasty little scheme involving readers of LOOT Magazine. Barrett, inadequate in things literary, fools other people into doing his work for him.

This is the key to the puzzle. Put your thinking cap on and work it out. The word 'novella' might be a helpful clue. Have a good week.
Ah, so you follow my own line of thinking, that Mike was only ever a "professional freelance journalist" in the loosest possible sense, and any work he submitted would have been done, or at least heavily tidied up, by his fool of a wife, and then presumably edited again by the magazine people before they accepted it for publication?

But do you think his wife was such a fool that she would happily - or willingly - have gone on to sign the agreement with Doreen and Shirley, knowing that the Barretts' recently completed little 'novella' was being taken seriously as a seriously old document?

I had my thinking cap on already, rj. But if the key to the puzzle is Mike, the inadequate liar, who fools other people into doing his work for him, may I humbly suggest you put your own cap on and ask yourself who are the fools who carry on doing his work from January 1995, when he wanted the world to believe he was the greatest forger ever born.

Also on page 316, just above your LOOT reference, we read that since then Mike claimed to be a member of MI5; to have foiled an IRA attack and been awarded the Queen's medal for gallantry; to be dying (within the next hour); to be remarried and expecting a baby; to be impotent; to have cancer; to be going to live in Russia and America.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-11-2018 at 06:46 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 01-11-2018, 07:14 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Today we are told for the first time ever, as far as I am aware, that Tim Martin-Wright believes he can date the APS shop conversation to December 1992 by use of his diary...

...Unless it can be positively ruled out that the conversation occurred in 1993 this line of enquiry will be a waste of time because if it is possible that it occurred in 1993 then I suggest it probably did.
What you suggest, David, is of no consequence. This 'line of enquiry' is not a waste of time, all the while there remains the possibility of pinning down the date, whether it be to 1992 or to 1993, using actual documents from the time and the independent memories of all three witnesses and what they were doing at that time.

If you concede that any mention of a Jack the Ripper diary, and/or a diary found under the floorboards of Battlecrease, by any of the electricians prior to Feldman becoming involved, and before the first newspaper stories appeared, would, if substantiated, require a sensible explanation, then you must surely appreciate why we won't be dropping such lines of enquiry because you don't happen to believe they will bear fruit. Surely it would be just as much in your interests, if we were able to report back that, actually, the conversation must have happened after April 1993 because of x, y and z.

If we don't bother looking, we'll never know either way. That can't be what you really want, can it?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 01-11-2018, 11:44 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Mike claimed to be a member of MI5; to have foiled an IRA attack and been awarded the Queen's medal for gallantry; to be dying (within the next hour); to be remarried and expecting a baby; to be impotent; to have cancer; to be going to live in Russia and America.
Thanks, Caz. It sounds like a good description of someone who might perpetrate a hoax.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 01-11-2018, 11:57 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
It sounds like a good description of someone who might perpetrate a hoax.
Exactly!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 01-11-2018, 12:03 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I see from today's posts that the Great Misunderstander is back misunderstanding.

I'm not here to argue that Mike Barrett is "telling the truth". My point is a very simple one. This is that there is actual hard evidence that Mike Barrett (the person who first produced the Jack the Ripper Diary to the world) attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages (at a time when no-one else is known to have seen the JTR Diary). This strongly points to him being involved in an attempt to forge a Victorian diary which in turn suggests that he was probably involved in forging the JTR diary. It's that simple.

For that reason the 1891 diary itself is not relevant. It's the attempt to get hold of such a diary which is important.

It's a hard fact which does not depend on Mike telling the truth (or telling a lie). And it's one of the very few hard facts in this case.

Anything else I've said on the matter is by way of explanation (in the face of extreme scepticism) as to how it was possible that the Diary could have been forged after Mike failed to obtain a suitable Victorian diary through Martin Earl. The story in Mike's affidavit provides just one possible explanation (and one that has not been disproved).

If anyone wants to counter the claim that Mike was involved in forging the Diary and that, instead, it was actually found under the floorboards of Battlecrease then by all means go ahead and provide some hard evidence. All we have had so far is a single coincidence of a date revealed by a single timesheet. I donít regard that as sufficient.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 01-11-2018, 12:20 PM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I see from today's posts that the Great Misunderstander is back misunderstanding.

I'm not here to argue that Mike Barrett is "telling the truth". My point is a very simple one. This is that there is actual hard evidence that Mike Barrett (the person who first produced the Jack the Ripper Diary to the world) attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages (at a time when no-one else is known to have seen the JTR Diary). This strongly points to him being involved in an attempt to forge a Victorian diary which in turn suggests that he was probably involved in forging the JTR diary. It's that simple.

For that reason the 1891 diary itself is not relevant. It's the attempt to get hold of such a diary which is important.

It's a hard fact which does not depend on Mike telling the truth (or telling a lie). And it's one of the very few hard facts in this case.

Anything else I've said on the matter is by way of explanation (in the face of extreme scepticism) as to how it was possible that the Diary could have been forged after Mike failed to obtain a suitable Victorian diary through Martin Earl. The story in Mike's affidavit provides just one possible explanation (and one that has not been disproved).

If anyone wants to counter the claim that Mike was involved in forging the Diary and that, instead, it was actually found under the floorboards of Battlecrease then by all means go ahead and provide some hard evidence. All we have had so far is a single coincidence of a date revealed by a single timesheet. I donít regard that as sufficient.
Yes there is a complete lack of evidence from anyone who doesn't believe Mike or someone close to Mike was involved in forging the diary. If you ask me it's time for these posters to put there money where there mouth is or shut up.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 01-11-2018, 12:26 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Let's recap on the Paul Dodd point.

It was stated (#234): "We know Rigby later went to see Paul Dodd, worried he might be implicated in theft, and volunteered the information that it was Bowling and Lyons who knew something about it."

My comment (#322) was: "I don't know anything of the sort".

The response to this (#327) was: "No, but Paul Dodd does - unless he was just making it up."

So I ask for the source of all this and it turns out to be from Robert Smith, page 19, as follows:

"I had also heard from another source that a very worried Rigby came to Paul Dodd's flat to deny any involvement in the removal of the diary, again trotting out exactly the same story that he had told Feldman, and implicating Bowling and Lyons as being culprits."

So the comment "No, but Paul Dodd does - unless he was just making it up" is the usual nonsense because Smith does not say in his book that his source was Paul Dodd.

But more important than this is the complete irrelevance of the story. By the time he spoke to Dodd (if Smith's source is correct) Rigby had already spoken to Feldman and told him exactly the same story. A story which he has already basically admitted was reconstruction in hindsight in trying to help Feldman solve his puzzle (i.e. as Feldman recalls, Rigby said to him: "I remember something being thrown out of a window of the room where we were working at Mr Dodd's house. It was put in a skip. With everything that I've heard since about the diary and considering the trip to Liverpool University, I think I've solved your problem."

So all it shows is that Rigby had built the whole thing up in his mind and become worried that he might get into trouble for having knowledge of the theft of the Diary. Given that we know what he had already said to Feldman, I fail to see how any subsequent conversation about the same thing with Paul Dodd takes the matter any further. Yet in the original telling we had Rigby apparently speaking to Rawes about what Eddie had said about finding the Diary in July 1992 (even though there is no evidence this ever happened) and then "later" speaking to Dodd. No mention was made that that Rigby had spoken to Feldman in the interim.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 01-11-2018, 12:28 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

If Colin Rhodes has confirmed that he released in 2017 (or earlier?) all the timesheets showing work done at Battlecrease then it is incomprehensible to me as to why we have had to wait until 11 January 2018 for some form of indirect public confirmation of this very important fact. Of course, we don't know (because we are not told) if Rhodes confirmed this fact yesterday, in response to my questions, or last year or at any other time. Nor do we know the wording he has used because he has not been quoted. For example, has he confirmed that this was everything he could find or does he guarantee it is everything that ever existed? Perhaps in a year's time we will find out.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 01-11-2018, 12:33 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

It's utterly irrelevant whether the electricians had the faintest idea who Mike was or when he first told anyone about his diary or knew anything about his telephone call or precisely when the diary was thought to have been found. All they needed to know what that it was suspected that the Diary had been found (under the floorboards) at Battlecrease. Once they had this information in their heads then when they searched their memories in 1993 (or later) about the work they carried out at Battlecrease during 1992 (or earlier) they might have interpreted innocent remarks or actions by others as being connected with this supposed discovery.

It's no doubt why Vinny Dring, who appears to have found some irrelevant books in Battlecrease in 1982, thought that HE might have found the Diary.

I don't think it's a difficult point to understand. And I wasn't making a positive point. I made the point in response to claims that the stories of the electricians somehow validated the timesheet evidence. I'm saying that the coincidence revealed by the timesheet evidence is not enhanced by the pre-existing stories of the electricians.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 11:50 AM.


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