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: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Batman 1 hour and 18 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Batman 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Abby Normal 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - (8 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (5 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (5 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (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
  #2651  
Old 01-05-2017, 12:58 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Are you serious? You actually did a search? I was making a general observation - albeit on this thread - about the watch being sidelined (as in ignored, disregarded, forgotten, not mentioned) on most Maybrick threads not specifically watch related. I wasn't claiming that the word 'sidelined' had been used by anyone else, on this or any other thread. Clearly, if most posters on most Maybrick threads prefer to put the watch to one side and forget about it while discussing the diary, the word 'sidelined' is not going to be used an awful lot, is it?
You did more than "make a general observation" Caz.

In response to my comment "Can I suggest the reason why the watch has been "sidelined" in this thread is that it is entitled "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary" (underlining added), you asked caustically "why are you only now suggesting it, and not when the first poster here brought up the watch? Losing your touch, or just touchy?"

You then asked "Are you honestly trying to tell me you have never seen other posters make the same observation?" I repeat that the answer to that question is yes, I have not seen other posters in this thread make the same observation.

Your criticism that the watch has been sidelined (using any word you like to replace sidelined) was a very strange one to make in this thread when the thread is nothing to do with the watch. That is what prompted my response that the answer is obvious. As far as I am aware no-one else has made a similar criticism in this thread because it's a thread about the Diary.

And it’s no good you now saying you were making a general observation about "most Maybrick threads” because my comment to which you responded caustically was specifically about this thread, hence my underlining above.

And I have searched in this thread for the words "disregarded", "forgotten" and "mentioned" (as in "not mentioned") and none of those appear in the context of the watch being sidelined. It seems to me to be a point that only you have made in this thread about the Diary, Caz.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2652  
Old 01-05-2017, 01:09 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
So you think we only asked O&L about the year 1990, do you? We trusted Mike that much, by the early 2000s, that we went by one of the dodgy dates he had come up with over the years and didn't think to ask the kind of questions that would have given us a definitive answer as to whether Mike's version of events could have taken place at O&L - ever?

I'm afraid you really must think everyone but Mike was incompetent then.
Well Caz I have to remind you what appears in your book (p.167):

"Having searched through the company’s files and archives on both sides of the alleged sale date, Whay confirmed that ‘no such description or lot number corresponding with Barrett’s statement exists.’"

So Kevin Whay, who was a director of O&L, says only that a search was conducted on "both sides of the alleged sale date". The alleged sale date in Barrett's affidavit was "the end of January 1990". This suggests that a search was only conducted on both sides of January 1990.

To me that does not sound like a search was conducted in the period March or April 1992. I'm not aware of any other public evidence relating to the search conducted by O&L.

So Caz, rather than me asking questions about what you did or did not do, why not tell us straight and plain: Did O&L conduct a search of their files and archives for the period March/April 1992 and did this search enable them to state categorically that Mike Barrett did not purchase a Victorian scrapbook from them at that time?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2653  
Old 01-05-2017, 01:14 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Just to be clear, he claimed that he obtained the guard book after the tiny 1891 diary.

He obtained the latter in March 1992.

He claimed he obtained the former in 1990.

Now since the above is an impossibility, it must contain at least one demonstrable untruth. It was either an untruth to claim he obtained the guard book in 1990, or it was an untruth to claim he obtained it after the 1891 diary. Whether he got himself thoroughly confused over his dates or was just demonstrating an inability to keep a straight story to save his life, there it was, a demonstrable untruth.

If you believe it was the truth that he obtained the guard book before it contained the diary, that's entirely up to you, but it will never be a demonstrable truth.
Caz – this is the very reason why I asked you to take my earlier posts into account before replying to me: so that you didn't respond (as I knew you inevitably would) by saying that, because O&L searched their records for 1990, Barrett couldn't have acquired the scrapbook in 1990, so that this claim is "a demonstrable untruth." This is an utterly futile response if the answer is that Barrett got his chronology wrong.

If he got his chronology wrong then him saying that he bought the scrapbook is 1990 is no more than an error of dating not an untruth. Given that he also says in his affidavit that he bought the 1891 diary before the scrapbook and that we know for a fact that this purchase was in March 1992, it is reasonable to suppose that "1990" is a dating error isn't it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2654  
Old 01-05-2017, 01:16 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I trust you are not suggesting Anne is a criminal, who was optimistic enough to think that she and her husband (yes, Mike Barrett) could pull off what Kujau had so recently failed to do, without the risk of her young daughter Caroline having to bake a cake with a nail file in when she visited her mum and dad in prison?

It is Mike Barrett, not me, who suggested in an affidavit that he and his wife were criminals Caz. The prisons are full of criminals who got caught, so asking me if someone is going to be stupid enough to do something where there is a risk of getting caught is a pointless question.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2655  
Old 01-05-2017, 01:18 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Oh indeed, David. I have said as much on scores of occasions. Our Mike has been able to fool countless otherwise intelligent people into believing he had it in him to research and write the diary - and all because they wanted to be so fooled. If it's a late 20th century hoax they want, it comes with Mike Barrett attached and still pulling the strings. There's nothing to be done about it.
So was his acquisition of the 1891 diary in March 1992 part of his scheme of fooling people into thinking he had written the Diary, Caz?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2656  
Old 01-05-2017, 01:21 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
How many out of all the people who would have known Mike long before, shortly before and after 1992 have ever come forward to express the opinion that he had 'sufficient qualifications' to produce the diary - in any other sense than to hand it over for inspection?

I can't recall a single person, can you? Was he so popular that nobody who knew him was disloyal enough to say he would have been capable? Or did he use his royalties to bribe them to keep it buttoned or pretend he couldn't have forged a sick note?
I’m not aware of anyone who knew him before March 1992 who has expressed an opinion on the subject either way. I don't even know if anyone has been asked.

But perhaps you can tell me: Who are all these people who knew him prior to March 1992 who have expressed an opinion that he did not have sufficient qualifications to do it then?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2657  
Old 01-05-2017, 01:24 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Most diary commentators will no doubt have read my little anecdote about a rude riddle Mike once tried to get published. It was one of those 'my first is in orange but not in apple' type of word puzzles, where the reader has to use the clues in each line to spell out a one-word solution. But Mike's words were all much naughtier than oranges and apples and the solution was not quite what he had had in mind because he couldn't spell it. There were eight lines of clues instead of six because he thought the rude word he was striving for was spelled 'o r g a n i s m'.

While I'm at it, I'm sure Robert Smith won't mind me telling you about another, more recent attempt by Mike to get something published. He wanted to write a novel around the 'coincidence' of Mary Kelly's murder happening on the same date as the destruction of the Twin Towers - 9/11.

Now I don't know whether he thought MJK died on September 11th, or the Twin Towers fell on November 9th, or whether he didn't think at all, but it's not a good look, is it?
You obviously don’t realise it but are actually providing evidence here which suggests that Barrett could easily have forged the Diary. He wanted to write a novel did he? So he at least thought he was capable of creative fiction. What else is the Diary but creative fiction?

With the diary, on his own account in his affidavit, he had his sensible wife writing everything out for him and thus checking everything first so he wasn’t going to be mistaking organisms for orgasms or getting dates the wrong way round.

The crucial point that I keep making and you keep ignoring is that it was supposed to be a joint enterprise.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2658  
Old 01-05-2017, 01:39 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You actually quoted Iconoclast as saying "He wanted to write out the journal in another document and take that to London rather than risk taking the original" and, in response, you said(#2361): "I think your interpretation is a definite possibility".
I don't think this possibility - that he thought about it and sought to acquire a Victorian diary in pursuit of this possibility - is even vaguely crazy given the man's Walter Mitty ways. Of course it was doomed to fail for most if not all of the reasons you give, but the logic at the end of the bright idea may not have been as apparent to him at the start of it.

It's a possibility (the above bit), but the fact that he advertsied for a diary from 1880-1891 probably most strongly suggests that he just wanted to see what one would look like. Even Mike could not (surely) have thought it wise - or even possible - to acquire an 1891 diary and either find fortuitously that it had few 1891s in it or that he could somehow believably remove reference to those that were in it?

If the ad was for an 1888 diary, I'm right there in your camp, David, thinking he's been to Hoax School and graduated with Honours, but the reality is he didn't and I'm not convinced this is anything more than another sad moment in Mike's confused life.

Last edited by Iconoclast : 01-05-2017 at 01:42 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2659  
Old 01-05-2017, 01:55 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
It's a possibility (the above bit), but the fact that he advertsied for a diary from 1880-1891 probably most strongly suggests that he just wanted to see what one would look like. Even Mike could not (surely) have thought it wise - or even possible - to acquire an 1891 diary and either find fortuitously that it had few 1891s in it or that he could somehow believably remove reference to those that were in it?
If he had simply advertised for a diary from 1880-1891 then your argument would be weak but plausible.

But he didn't do this. He specifically wanted a diary with blank pages, thus limiting his chances of a positive result.

Are you saying he wanted to see what blank pages look like?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2660  
Old 01-05-2017, 02:03 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
If the ad was for an 1888 diary, I'm right there in your camp, David, thinking he's been to Hoax School and graduated with Honours, but the reality is he didn't and I'm not convinced this is anything more than another sad moment in Mike's confused life.
We've discussed this before but the mistake you are making is to think that he (as a forger) needed a diary from 1888. He didn't. What he was after was the paper, not the diary so much.

The story in the Maybrick Diary obviously crosses from 1888 to 1889. A single year would have been too limiting for this story.

There is also NO WAY that the forger wanted a diary broken into printed weeks and days. That would have been far too complicated and would cause him untold problems.

Note how there is no real sense of time or dates in the diary. We have no idea what days events are occurring on other than matching the known events to actual days.

In other words, he is not interested in 1888 specifically. He just wants a book from the period with blank pages in which to write. It's not a diary he wants specifically but a journal or, as it transpired, a scrapbook. However the only way he can realistically get a period journal is to ask for a diary with blank pages.
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 07:08 PM.


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