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 DJA 1 hour and 28 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - by rjpalmer 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (23 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (14 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - (4 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (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
  #101  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:07 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
The two books Barrett actually mentions in his supposed "research notes" are Wilson/Odell JtR: Summing up and Verdict (1987) and Paul Harrison JtR: the Mystery Solved (1991).
Hi rj,

Do you know if anyone, at any time, has suggested that the above two books would have given Mike some, if not all, the ripper information he'd have needed to create the diary text?

Or do you see this as a smart double bluff, by deliberately mentioning two books that wouldn't have supplied him with all the source material he actually used?

Do you think he read both books carefully, cover to cover, to make sure he could refer to them in his notes without incriminating himself?

Did he fashion the notes to support a perception he went on to feed Keith, that he appeared to know relatively little about the ripper case?

Very little has been said about these notes, so I wonder what thoughts people have about their potential significance.

Mind you, I haven't visited the 25 years thread since September, so I would have missed that discussion if it took place there.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:22 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
So now we are being drip fed information – or rather, drip fed statements without any evidential support – not mentioned in Robert Smith's book or any other publication or website of which I am aware, one statement being that the Portus and Rhodes electricians were working in Battlecrease in 1989.
I have definitely mentioned that before, and had to consult the relevant timesheet, but I couldn't tell you when or where I posted it and am not about to look. Something else for you to assume never happened. But to repeat: the two men involved on that minor one-off job to repair a faulty immersion heater did not include any of the 1992 electricians.

Quote:
One has to love the logic of the argument here. On 9th March there is a timesheet which does not show Eddie Lyons working in Battlecrease. In 1989 there is a timesheet which does not show Eddie Lyons working in Battlecrease. Of course this obviously means that Eddie Lyons was working in Battlecrease on 9th March 1992 but not in 1989! It's Diary logic at its finest.
So you tell us all if you think you know better. When did Eddie start with P&R and when did he leave? While he was working there did he ever do odd jobs or help out on a casual basis, where he may have been paid from the petty cash [as I used to pay our cleaner at a firm of solicitors I worked for] if the work didn't warrant a timesheet? Colin Rhodes would be a good starting point.

Then you wouldn't be stuck loving the logic of an argument. You'd actually have a fact or two under your belt to play with.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 11-22-2017 at 08:25 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:43 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
Could the Diary have been tossed into the skip and been retrieved by "Eddie", who rummaged through it later to see if there was scrap metal he could sell to Mike (knowing he would see him later in the pub)? Eddie may not have been doing actual work in the house but just scavenging for metal. And where was the site of the skip?
Hi Scotty,

Yes, it's possible something like this happened, although Rigby's story was that he saw two of his colleagues trying to hide something in one of their vehicles. I'm not sure a skip featured in his account, but there could have been one there. Eddie does recall a job in the house involving a heater, which in turn involved lifting the floorboards, which would imply he was there in some capacity on that day. His story of finding a book and throwing it out of the window into a skip sounds like a cover story against the accusation that he took the book away and passed it on to Mike. The implication would then be that if this was the diary, someone else found it in the skip and treated it as a freebie.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:12 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
When I think of the importance of Robert Smith's first hand experience of watching the body language of Mike and Eddie during their June 1993 meeting, their eye contact and reactions, well, you know, it makes me wonder why he said not a word about any of it in his book "The True Facts"! And my conclusion from him saying nothing is that it can't have been very important after all.

But more than this, I think that it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making which is that Robert Smith set up the meeting in June 1993 specifically and expressly to meet Eddie Lyons, something which he asked Mike to arrange on his behalf.
Yes, but I was offering some extra detail, by saying there was no actual arrangement made for that evening, or in that pub, until Robert suggested this to Mike on arrival at his house. Yet they strolled down to the Saddle and Eddie turned up on cue without Mike apparently having had to relay any message to him about the time or place. It's just something more to think about - or not. Please yourself. It could imply a regular Saturday night thing, with Mike knowing Eddie was likely to put in an appearance and therefore didn't need to get a message to him when Robert suggested the Saddle that evening.

Quote:
So I have to repeat: what purpose did any mention of this meeting serve?
You go on and on about things that have been said and done behind the scenes that you think should be made available to all [without knowing what, if anything, will turn out to be relevant], but the minute I post something from my behind-the-scenes correspondence with Robert, you reject it as having no purpose or relevance. I don't just post stuff for your benefit - or disapproval. Others may actually be interested in the finer details.

Robert talked about his meeting with Eddie in his book. You have read it, so I can't see what objection you can possibly have to my mentioning it here too, seeing that I have been heavily criticised by others who haven't read the book, for not mentioning stuff contained in it.

Have you been sucking lemons?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:35 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

For anyone who is interested, there has been a similar discussion about acquiring a Victorian diary here:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....218#post335218

Enjoy!

Or not.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-22-2017, 10:04 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi rj, Do you know if anyone, at any time, has suggested that the above two books would have given Mike some, if not all, the ripper information he'd have needed to create the diary text?
Good afternoon Caz. Just dropping by, and funny you should ask, because I've recently read, or partially read, the two books Mike mentions. Let me warn you in advance: this WON'T convince you that "Mike dunnit." But I found it slightly interesting.

The Wilson/Odell book mentioned in Mike's 'research notes' actually has a paragraph that mentions the Maybrick case in passing. It concerns Dr. Forbes Winslow, his father's asylum, and the sad case of Florie M. The 1988 edition of Wilson/Odell is a paperback, gum binding. If Barrett gazed on that passage once too often it would have made a crease in the gum.

The same paragraph has the word "Hammersmith" rather prominently placed at the beginning of a sentence (1988 edition). In the 1987 edition, the word is also prominent, being at the end of a line and hyphenated: Hammer-smith. I don't know which edition Mike owned, but it doesn't matter much.

Mike supposedly had a habit of flipping open books. For instance, he is said to have come up with the obscure "O[h] Costly intercourse of Death" quotation by casually flipping through the Sphere Guide to English Literature. The alleged binding defect made it more likely that the book would open at that page. Mike saw the quote, and decided to incorporate it in the Diary's text.

Now, if Mike also wanted to come up with an interesting name for an imaginary neighbor, what could be more natural than flipping open his trusty Wilson/Odell and grabbing a name at random? Thanks to the crease, the book flips open to page 79-80--right to that oft gazed upon paragraph---and the word "Hammersmith" is staring Mike in the face.

Thus, Mrs. Hammersmith 'the bitch' is born.

I can't imagine this 'works' for you, but it does show that coincidences can be so... coincidental.

But I am reminded by your above link that those of us who still suspect Mike's involvement are suffering from 'mental health issues,' so I will leave it at that and go seek medication. Have a good evening.

Last edited by rjpalmer : 11-22-2017 at 10:07 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:44 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
But I am reminded by your above link that those of us who still suspect Mike's involvement are suffering from 'mental health issues,' so I will leave it at that and go seek medication.
Yes, indeed.

I try hard not to respond to comments made in another place but, as the link to the thread has been posted here, it is worth amusing ourselves with the claim that anyone who still believes that Barrett himself created the diary has "mental issues". I'm not sure if the poster who said this allows for the possibility that Barrett might have been assisted by others in the creation of the text and writing of the diary but what's so amusing is that in support of this extraordinary claim the poster makes at least one serious factual error.

Thus he says he that, if he had forged the diary, it doesn't make sense (and he can't believe) that "Barrett ADVERTISES for a diary". Well if he had consulted the OP of this thread, he would know that Mike Barrett never once advertised for a diary. It was Martin Earl who placed the advertisement and the likelihood is that Barrett had absolutely no idea how Martin Earl acquired his rare books and thus had no idea that he ever placed an advert in Bookdealer to obtain the diary. In any event, if Barrett had not himself stated in his 1995 affidavit that he had acquired a Victorian diary no-one would ever possibly have discovered the advertisement and linked it to the JTR diary.

The other point he makes in support of his argument is that Barrett showed no familiarity with the Maybrick and JTR cases when speaking to Keith Skinner and it was only when he got up to speed by creating his backdated "Research Notes" that he knew anything about those subjects. Well I mean, if Barrett created the Diary it means he was reasonably clever and he's hardly going to show off his detailed knowledge of Maybrick and JTR to the researcher who is investigating whether the Diary is a fake!

That's assuming that the conversation with Keith Skinner was before he created his Research Notes. Those notes were handed to Shirley Harrison in July or August 1992 so Keith Skinner's conversation with Barrett must have been prior to this and I'm not aware that such an early conversation has ever been documented. Our friendly poster doesn't tell us what date this conversation took place.

Yet it is on the basis of this flawed and dodgy thinking that this poster is able to say that anyone who disagrees with him has "mental issues". And that's just about the standard of debate that we have come to expect from the Diary faithful.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:48 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Reading through today's barrage of unduly aggressive and poorly argued posts I am struck by the fact that the one topic not addressed is my point (which relates to the actual subject of this thread) that Mike Barrett in March 1992 was obviously NOT trying to obtain a diary with 20 blank pages but, instead, an entirely blank unused diary and only in the alternative a partly used diary which could have had 50 or 100 pages.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-22-2017, 12:07 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The levels of (mis)comprehension being demonstrated in this thread are incredible. Far from criticising anyone from using the word "probably", my criticisms are for that word not being used! I am criticising the use of unqualified statements of people stating things as facts which are not facts. And I am criticising the overblown claims being made for the timesheet evidence as if we now know that the Diary came from Battlecrease. We know no such thing!

But let me be clear. I do not criticise anyone for setting out a notional scenario in which, for the sake of explaining that scenario, elements of it are expressed as facts. For that reason, I make no criticism of the way the scenarios are set out in, for example, #49 in this thread, even though, taken out of context, it might appear to contain speculation stated as fact.

What I have been criticising are statements of fact that are not expressed in any way as speculation or assumptions, such as: "There is no denying that the floorboards in Maybrick's old bedroom were lifted on just the one day"(#54). If the claim in #68 that the JTR books were enquired about by Mike at the same time as he enquired about a Victorian diary was only supposed to be a possible scenario it was very poorly expressed.

But let's look at that statement about the floorboards being lifted "on just the one day" and compare it to what is said in Shirley Harrison's 2003 book:

"Paul [Dodd] was adamant. The house was originally gaslit and converted to electricity in the 1920s. It was re-wired when his father bought it in 1946 and again in 1977 when Paul himself had gutted the place and lifted the floor boards. Had anything been hidden, he was sure that would have found it then."

So the floorboards were lifted in 1977.

And in Inside Story (p.251) we find this:

"Dodd says the floorboards have been lifted a number of times since 1946 and nothing found..."

The authors of Inside Story go on to note that, from some sort of private information, Dodd believed that Feldman was the victim of a scam (presumably involving the Portus & Rhodes electricians) and that there was "no substance at all to the claims made of finding the Diary at Battlecrease."
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-22-2017, 12:13 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Here's an interesting quote from Feldman's book (1997 edition, p. 133):

"Mike Barrett had taken the diary to the literary agent Doreen Montgomery in April 1992. Three years before, in 1989 - for the first time since Maybrick's death on 11 May 1889 - the floorboards in what was his bedroom had been removed. I was finding it difficult to accept that there was not a connection between the two events".

Replace "Three years before, in 1989" with "One month before, on 9 March 1992" and it seems that the exact same argument is being made today as was being made 20 years ago, which shows how far the timesheet evidence has got us!

We might note that the authors of Inside Story point out that Paul Dodd claims that Feldman was wrong to say that the floorboards were lifted for the first time in 1989, not because he should have said 1992 but because they were lifted prior to this, as I have quoted in my previous post.
__________________
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 08:52 PM.


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