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:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Batman 2 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by OneRound 6 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: The Whitechapel Murders of 1888: Another Dead End? - by John Malcolm 1 hour and 27 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Trevor Marriott 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (30 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (19 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (8 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (2 posts)
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (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
  #891  
Old 02-04-2018, 06:44 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is online now
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I didn't mention a crossword.

The question was: Is there "any evidence" Mike was a journalist?

The fact that he had articles published under his byline in a nationally sold magazine by a well known publisher over a three year period and was paid for those articles must, by any definition, be evidence that he was a freelance journalist.
If Mike had written articles then the argument that Mike couldn't have written the diary is complete and utter bullshit.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 02-04-2018, 06:47 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
If Mike had written articles then the argument that Mike couldn't have written the diary is complete and utter bullshit.
And therein does the issue lie. What were these articles Barrett had published over a three year period?

I'm thinking The Times or The Observer, maybe The Grauniad?

I'm sure that we're not talking about his celebrity interviews for Look-In magazine, are we? (You know - the ones his wife had to tidy up for him before they could be presented to the children who read that comic.)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 02-04-2018, 06:47 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Why does it need to be you who mentions it?
Because you were commenting on my post with your "half full" comment. I'm saying the evidence for him being a journalist is the articles in Celebrity.

No-one was asking if there was any evidence he was a crossword compiler.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 02-04-2018, 06:50 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Because you were commenting on my post with your "half full" comment. I'm saying the evidence for him being a journalist is the articles in Celebrity.

No-one was asking if there was any evidence he was a crossword compiler.
It would certainly have added context if you'd considered it though, my Lord.

Apparently, they were similar in nature to John Wheat's interpretation of my views on Maybrick.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 02-04-2018, 06:51 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
And therein does the issue lie. What were these articles Barrett had published over a three year period?

I'm thinking The Times or The Observer, maybe The Grauniad?

I'm sure that we're not talking about his celebrity interviews for Look-In magazine, are we? (You know - the ones his wife had to tidy up for him before they could be presented to the children who read that comic.)
Journalists don't only work at the Times, Observer and Guardian you know. They also work at the Sun, Daily Star, Express, Mail, Hello, OK, Woman, etc. etc.

I'm glad you're sure that we're not talking about Look-In because we're not. We are talking about his articles in Celebrity magazine which were mainly, but not exclusively, interviews with celebrities.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 02-04-2018, 07:34 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Why does it need to be you who mentions it? Barrett the author-scrap dealer submitted crosswords as well. I don't recall the details.

Your use of 'journalist' gives credibility to Maybrick where truthfully none can lie. It inflates him, as I suspect it is intended to do.
He submitted crosswords? As in ones he devised for others to do?
If that’s the case, then he’s smarter that I thought.

That’s not easy to do, actually.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 02-04-2018, 07:49 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Your use of 'journalist' gives credibility to Maybrick where truthfully none can lie. It inflates him, as I suspect it is intended to do.
What else can one possibly call someone who writes articles for a national magazine and gets paid for it?

There is no other word.

He was a freelance journalist.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 02-04-2018, 11:59 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I guess you haven't been following this thread very closely John. In #322 I said:

"Let me first correct the mistaken claim that I believe that Mike concocted the diary. This is something I have never said. What I have said is that Mike's acquisition of the Victorian Diary leads me to the conclusion that he was involved in forging the diary. That involvement could have been no more than obtaining the scrapbook (or not even that, simply an attempt to obtain a diary of some sort which the forger could use). Someone else might have concocted the text and someone else might have written it (and someone else might have obtained the scrapbook). Indeed, in his January 1995 affidavit, Mike claimed that Tony Devereux was involved in the preparations and research of the diary while his wife was the scribe who actually wrote it out based on some kind of pre-prepared draft or notes."


In any case, Melvin Harris has demonstrated very well that the amount of research required to produce the Diary was minimal if any:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...y/mhguide.html



Yes, a number of articles published under his name in Celebrity magazine between 1986 and 1988.
Okay, thanks for the clarification, David. Regarding Mike's profession, personally I think referring to him as a journalist, based upon a few short articles to an obscure magazine I've never heard of, which he may or may not have written, is a bit of a stretch. For instance, if I submit an article or two to, say, an obscure darts publication, which are then published, does that make me a journalist?

I mean would also refer to the excellent post by Chris Jones on the other thread. He states that he visited Mike and viewed a sample of his handwriting, which looked nothing like the writing in the diary. Moreover, it contained numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes (interestingly, Mike was now , in 2002, once again denying ownership of the diary, returning to his original position that it was given to him by TD.)

Now, unlike some people I happen to consider that the diary was reasonably well written, whereas if Mike was the author I think in all likelihood it would have contained many more mistakes, i.e. spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, factual errors. And the fact that he kept changing his story over the years is, of course, a huge red flag.

Personally, I think that Mike started to revel in the publicity surrounding the diary and it's authorship; maybe it was an antidote to his increasingly chaotic personal life. And that might explain why he was happy to claim sole responsibility for the hoax.

On balance, I believe he did have a role, i.e. to act as front man and to perhaps carry out some basic research. But I think someone else, someone close to him, actually wrote it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 02-05-2018, 12:37 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Personally, I think that Mike started to revel in the publicity surrounding the diary and it's authorship; maybe it was an antidote to his increasingly chaotic personal life. And that might explain why he was happy to claim sole responsibility for the hoax.
We haven't agreed on anything to date, I think, John G, but you hit he nail roundly on the head with this comment. Spot on.

Quote:
On balance, I believe he did have a role, i.e. to act as front man and to perhaps carry out some basic research. But I think someone else, someone close to him, actually wrote it.
That's a shame. Just when we were getting on so well ...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 02-05-2018, 08:35 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is online now
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
What else can one possibly call someone who writes articles for a national magazine and gets paid for it?

There is no other word.

He was a freelance journalist.
Nothing anyone who has had an article published in a national magazine is clearly capable of writing a hoax diary as it is Mike had several articles published. And if anything someone who had articles published in The Guardian rather than what one could term the gutter press would have more integrity and would be less likely to write a hoax diary. Come on diary believers the game's up. The diary is a forgery written by Mike Barrett.
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 09:08 AM.


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