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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 35 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Trevor Marriott 47 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 2 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Varqm 3 hours ago.
General Discussion: The Weapon - by Ginger 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (10 posts)
General Discussion: The Weapon - (4 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (3 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (3 posts)
Ripper Notes: Status of Ripper Notes? - (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
  #1371  
Old 03-10-2018, 08:37 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I really must have hit a nerve with the amount of nonsense I am reading today.

If Arthur Rigby recalled Brian Rawes telling him about a discovery by Eddie under the floorboards why didn't he tell Feldman about it? After all, he was trying to link Eddie with the diary so it's extraordinary that he hasn't mentioned it to Feldman. And he can't have done because Feldman says nothing about it.

So we need an explanation as to why Arthur Rigby didn't mention it. None has been provided. What we don't need is waffle upon waffle attempting to disguise the fact that we have no explanation.

I have no idea what Jim Bowling adds to the scenario. As far as I understood what Rigby was saying, he went to Liverpool University with Eddie and Bowling regarding some unidentified package. But Feldman tells us the package contained "letters unrelated to the Diary".

My point is that Rigby has put together a series of unconnected incidents, none of which have anything to do with the diary to make a big picture connected to the diary. The throwing of something in the skip and the visit to Liverpool University being the two main things but IF and I repeat IF Rawes mentioned the conversation he had with Eddie in July 1992 it would explain why Rigby thought in February or March 1993 that Eddie must have found the diary and why he linked everything else with the diary.

Not a shred of evidence or reason has been put forward why Brian might have had any reason to apply his mind to or think about a conversation with Eddie Rawes in July 1992 until the subject of the JTR diary came up in the following year.

If Eddie had been approaching Brian for any advice the normal start to such a conversation would have been "I need to ask your advice about something" or similar. Instead, he does no such thing and blurts out "I found something under the floorboards". Trying to make some point about him then saying "I don't know what to do about it" as opposed to "I don't know what to do with it" is ridiculous. If he had found the diary in Battlecrease in March 1992, as we are supposed to believe, it is now out of his hands and he knew exactly what to do both with it and about it in March 1992. He gave it to Mike Barrett.

We keep being told time and time again that no floorboards were lifted in Battlecrease in July 1992 without a single piece of evidence to support that claim. Who knows what Eddie lifted in Battlecrease in July 1992? No-one!

It all just brings us back to the obvious conclusion that if Eddie found something in Battlecrease that he wanted to discuss with Brian on 17th July 1992 it must have been a very recent discovery and thus completely unconnected with the diary.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1372  
Old 03-10-2018, 11:09 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Eddie is not on the time sheet for 9th March 1992, but that was the only day he could have found anything under a floorboard if he was helping out for a couple of hours, as he and Colin Rhodes have both admitted was possible.
Hi Caz, I don't want to debate the accuracy of this statement, because I don't know enough about it. But the whole 'time sheet' thing strikes me as very odd, but perhaps I missed something. Because I don't get it. Here in the US we have something known as the 'Wage and Hour Board,' that insures that employers follow the labor laws, and the Board also arbitrates if there are any disputes over wages due to an employee. In the firm where I was employed for many years, I used to fill out the time sheets for 8 or 9 employees that worked under me, and it was very important to insure accuracy. Believe me, if any supervisor made a mistake, they heard about it from the head of Payroll. These records need to be precise. Further, I have a good friend who is in charge of payroll with another firm, and she constantly complains about having to correct the work of supervisors. It is a task of major importance to her and her boss to make sure everything is neat and clean. If, months or years later, there is a dispute about who worked what, the company needs to be able to demonstrate to the Wage and Hour Board that their records are accurate and can be trusted. Yet here, it seems as though Mr. Rhodes is "winging it." How would Eddie be correctly paid if his hours are not listed? And why does his job location even matter? Each employee has a time sheet and it lists the hours they worked and their pay rate. It's the only sane way of doing it. So what the heck is going on here? Were these sheets you are referring to made out for the benefit of billing Dodd for the labor costs on this particular project? Certainly Rhodes, or Rhodes's payroll secretary, could have produced a timesheet showing EXACTLY what hours Eddie worked on 9 March, 1992? If not, why not? It's all very mysterious.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1373  
Old 03-10-2018, 11:23 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Just to add this RJ, I don't believe that Eddie Lyons and Colin Rhodes have ever admitted it was possible that Lyons and Bowling could have worked at Battlecrease without there being a timesheet record of such work. That question, as far as I am aware, has never been raised with them.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1374  
Old 03-11-2018, 03:41 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 rjpalmer View Post
In the meantime, Barrett & Graham split. So 'they' are not working together on anything. Then, in the Summer of 1994, Mike contacts the Liverpool Post and confesses to forging the Diary.

Only then does Anne Graham suddenly resurface and, for the first time, claims the Diary has been in her family for years. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything 'they' came up with, and certainly nothing to do with any accusations of theft; she is obviously responding to Barrett's confession of forgery and is trying to undermine him.
Hi rj,

This is the bit - in bold - that needs a little more thought. Here we have Anne, doing her level best to 'undermine' Mike by trying to take his second baby - the diary - away from him, at a time when he was spitting blood because she had left him and taken away his first baby - their only child, no less. If anything was designed to encourage Mike to take his damaging forgery claims to the next level, and drag her into the mire with him, this was it. Assuming she had no proof for her 'in the family claim', and was banking on nobody being able to disprove it, she seemed to have no awareness that Mike could have reacted to her 'revelation' by retracting the retraction made on his behalf by his solicitor, and this time produced powerful evidence of their joint enterprise, with a little help from his friends, the little red diary acquired for the purpose in March 1992, and the Sphere book that had supposedly lounged in their home since 1989.

It's almost like Anne knew he had been talking out of his bottom, so she was safe to create a history for the diary leading up to, accommodating and seeking to explain his original claim to have got it from a pal who died without saying a word about it. It's almost like Anne had no idea the red diary or Sphere book could possibly come back to haunt her. It's almost like one was a little red herring as far as she was concerned and she'd never even heard of the other.

Quote:
So your scenario that this 'in the family' story was something 'they' made up to cover the for an alleged theft, does not, unfortunately, even loosely fit the facts, though I'm sure some here might be happy to accept it anyway.
Explain?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 03-11-2018 at 03:43 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1375  
Old 03-11-2018, 04:21 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
Just to add this RJ, I don't believe that Eddie Lyons and Colin Rhodes have ever admitted it was possible that Lyons and Bowling could have worked at Battlecrease without there being a timesheet record of such work. That question, as far as I am aware, has never been raised with them.
You may not believe it, David, but that doesn't stop it from being the case. Certainly Colin Rhodes spoke to Keith about sending employees off to help out on a casual basis, when they were 'kicking their heels' in his office and he was paying them for doing nothing.

And Eddie's account to James Johnston of his own duties would suggest he was one of those who had been sent to help out for an hour or two, including a job involving heaters and lifting floorboards.

Now the latter admission may have been made in complete ignorance of the fact that there had only been one such occasion and his interviewer knew this. Would Eddie have been aware that floorboards hadn't been going up and down on other occasions when he wasn't working there officially and hadn't been asked to help out? But in any case, if he was opening his mouth before engaging his brain, that might help support the two previous occasions he had apparently spoken incautiously - when mentioning his find to Brian Rawes, on 17th July 1992, and when asking Feldman what his confession was worth circa late May 1993.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 03-11-2018 at 04:23 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1376  
Old 03-11-2018, 04:53 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The red diary was not "powerful evidence" of anything. As I've said multiple times, it could be explained easily by Mike wanting to see what a Victorian diary looked like. This is exactly what Anne said when asked about it but we now know that explanation was not true.

The powerful evidence of Mike's involvement in a forgery is the fact that Mike wanted a Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 pages. That evidence was extracted from the advertisement, the existence of which Anne almost certainly had no clue, just like Mike clearly did not know of its existence.

The Sphere paperback is also not "powerful evidence" of anything and (if Mike actually had it in his possession in the summer of 1994) could easily be explained by coincidence. That certainly explains why I have never once mentioned it as evidence of Mike being involved in the forgery.

But we have here another wonderful example of Diary Defender doublethink. On the one hand, we have always been told that Mike has never been able to produce any evidence that he was involved in forging the diary but now we are told that he HAS produced two items showing powerful evidence of his involvement!!!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1377  
Old 03-11-2018, 05:00 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

If Colin Rhodes did tell Keith Skinner that he would send employees off to help out "on a casual basis", when they were "kicking their heels" in the office and he was paying them for doing nothing, it is strange that we have not been told this by either James Johnston (who has posted extracts of what Rhodes told Keith) or by Keith Skinner himself.

So how do we know it is true? If Colin Rhodes did tell this to Keith Skinner why hasn't the full quote been provided? Why has the evidence not been properly presented? Why do we keep getting a slow drip of information from unreliable third parties?

And if it is true it still does not answer the point I made that neither Eddie Lyons and Colin Rhodes have ever admitted it was possible that Lyons and Bowling could have worked at Battlecrease without there being a timesheet record of such work.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1378  
Old 03-11-2018, 05:06 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The timesheet evidence was first presented in, I think, September 2017 and we have still seen no evidence that floorboards were not raised in Battlecrease in July 1992.

It has certainly been stated as fact time and time again but never backed up by good evidence.

If Eddie Lyons remembers lifting floorboards in Battlecrease, and the only record we have of him working in Battlecrease is in July 1992, then one interpretation of that evidence is that Eddie did lift floorboards in Battlecrease in July 1992.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1379  
Old 03-11-2018, 10:10 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 397
Default

Hi caz. I only have a minute. My 'some might wish to accept it anyway' was in loose response to various comments made by you and others on this thread. The argument--stated implicitly or explicitly--appears to be that the behavior of Anne and Mike is equally consistent with a theory of forgery or with a theory of theft. Have I been misreading? Is that not what you and Keith are implying? And if so, does it really fit the facts when it comes to Anne's delayed revelation of having seen the diary in the 1960s? She appears to be responding to allegations of forgery.

Meanwhile, I can only reiterate David Orsam's post above, #1378.

I've been around hourly employees for many many years. I've worked with electricians. If Eddie is 'kicking around the office' doing nothing, then it certainly implies that he had a fixed work schedule, say 9 to 5, otherwise why did he even come in that day? And if he did have fixed hours, this is utterly damaging to your "put in a quick two hours at Battlecrease and then skip off to the Saddle for a liquid brunch and a swap meet with Barrett" scenario. If, on the other hand, Eddie was someone Rhodes brought in only when they definitely needed him at a job site, and thus only worked the odd two or three hours here and there, then it would be doubly important that Eddie's random hours were carefully documented, otherwise how would he be paid? I'm merely trying to understand your argument from a payroll perspective. How did the guy get paid without a time sheet? Enjoy your day.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1380  
Old 03-12-2018, 06:44 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
From Mike Barrett's 25 January 1995 affidavit:

On Wednesday 18th January 1995 when they all called at my home I was pressurised by them. Feldman's man Skinner came earlier than the others and started a tape recording off and my very words at the begining (sic) were, "FELDMAN YOU BASTARD GO AND GET ****ED, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BLOODY BIG MAN WITH A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I WILL NEVER GIVE INTO YOU. I REFUSE TO BE BLACKMAILED". The tape carried on as the other three people arrived, Mrs Harrison, Sally Emmy, and a man who said, "he was an Independent Adviser'. I made reference on Tape that the hatred between Ann Barrett and I must stop. The Independent Advisor never said a word, but the others made it clear to me that if the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' is genuine I would get my money in June 1995, however due to my Solicitor advising me some time before this meeting, that I had been granted legal aid to take Shirley Harrison to Court, along with Robert Smith and that if I stay quiet I would get my money, so this being the case I decided to collaboarate with these people and Anne's story by supporting the Diary., much to my regret but at the time I did not know what to do.

Caz. Thanks for the Alan Gray quote, but I'm not disputing he eventually gave up on Barrett. I am disputing the simplistic explanation that this was an unflinching, tried-and-true, cooperative effort to expose the diary, when in fact, there are indications that Barrett was all over the map, and had conflicting motives. Check out the sentence in bold. Whatever you feel about the accusation against Keith, Sally, and Shirley, they were not privy to Mike's private conversations with either his lawyer or his estranged wife, so he could, in fact, have been 'got' at. Why shouldn't I accept that it would have dawned on Barrett that he was royally screwing up his own interests? Afterall, he was derailing the film project, was putting his own royalties at risk, and was, of course, shooting himself in the foot. 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.
Hi rj,

Apologies if I'm being dense, but I'm not sure what point you are making here. Have I asked you not to accept this? And what does it tell you about the veracity of Mike's forgery claims, if he was trying to make money out of them while at the same time destroying Feldman's interests, but finally realised that more could be made from reverting to his original position of believing the diary to be genuine, even if it meant toeing the Feldman/Harrison line?

It's instructive that Eddie Lyons's ill-fated 'confession-for-profit-scheme', from two years previously, can be so quickly discarded as a scam involving a false confession, in favour of clinging on to the belief that compulsive liar and fantasist Mike Barrett's similarly ill-fated 'confession-for-profit-scheme' involved a true one, which he might have gone on to prove if only he could have made more money that way.

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 02:23 AM.


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