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:
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by Varqm 42 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 60 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by PaulB 1 hour and 10 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Wickerman 1 hour and 18 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by PaulB 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (30 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (19 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (10 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (7 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (6 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
  #361  
Old 01-09-2018, 12:17 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I honestly don't know if a certain person is deliberately misunderstanding my posts in order to cause confusion, and throw dust into the eyes of the readers of this forum, or is actually misunderstanding them due to problems with comprehension. And I can't work out which is worse. But either way, when I wrote:

"It was known to everyone in 1993 that the floorboards in Battlecrease had, at some point prior to the discovery of the Diary, been lifted by the electricians and it was equally obvious to everyone that if the Diary had been found in Battlecrease the most likely place for its discovery was under the floorboards."

Surely, surely it must be clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that the use of the words "at some point" means that no-one knew exactly when the floorboards had been lifted.

Yet I read a response today in which it is said: "but would they all have recalled the month, let alone the day, without checking the timesheets?"

I just don't understand the mind that produced such a response. I'm not saying anyone would have recalled the month or day or needed timesheets. My point was a simple one. Everyone in 1993 knew that the floorboards had been lifted.

What did I mean by everyone? Well I went on, in the very next sentence of my post, to quote from Robert Smith's introduction to Shirley Harrison's 1993 book in which he said: "For the first time since 1888, floorboards were lifted and it is tempting to speculate that one of the electricians found the diary…"

So everyone who read that introduction, potentially everyone in the country, knew that the floorboards had been lifted in Battlecrease.

And Shirley's book was published on 7 October 1993, two full weeks before Brian Rawes was interviewed by detectives on 21 October 1993 (according to James Johnston). So could Rawes have been aware at the time of his interview that the floorboards had been lifted prior to the discovery of the Diary, and indeed that it was then being speculated that the Diary had been found under those very floorboards? Yes, of course!

And when I said that Rawes' story "could easily have been influenced by Feldman’s belief that the diary had been discovered under the floorboards", even a small child would have been able to understand that this did not necessarily mean that Feldman knew that Rawes existed. As I've already said, Feldman claimed to have spoken to "the electricians involved with the job". Regardless of whether this included Rawes, anything Feldman said to those electricians could have been passed on to Rawes by one of them. This is why I specifically addressed my question on this subject to James Johnston. Did he ask Rawes what he knew or had heard about the Diary prior to his police interview? I have no idea what he would say to this but unless I ask the question I can't know.

And yes of course it would have been thought to have been amazing in 1993 had it be discovered that the floorboards had been lifted on, say, 5th March 1992, or 1st March or 25 February or 19th January or plenty of other dates because, of course, that would have been regarded as giving sufficient time for the diary to make its way to Mike. This is something which, with the obsession on 9th March, is so easy to forget. Feldman thought the floorboards had been lifted in 1989 which, for him, was sufficient to make a connection with the discovery of the diary even thought that was three years before its production by Mike. If it had only been three weeks one can only imagine how excited he would have been.

So the 9th March is not the only date of significance and I must repeat that the 1993 story of the electricians of a discovery under the floorboards is not validated by any knowledge we have today that the floorboards were lifted on 9 March 1992 in circumstances when everyone knew in 1993 that the floorboards had been lifted at some point prior to Mike's telephone call to London.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 01-09-2018, 12:31 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Continuing from the above:

For some reason we are then told: "If Eddie Lyons wasn't at the house on that occasion, someone else must have told him what the job was, or there'd be no reason for him to know anything about it, or to tell James he had been on a job to do with heaters, which involved the floorboards coming up."

That (fairly obvious observation) has precisely nothing to do with the point I was making which was all about the knowledge by everyone that the floorboards had come up in Battlcrease at some time. A different point is being made here about Eddie Lyons' knowledge at the time of his interviews with James Johnston in the last few years; a good example of why it's almost impossible to have a sensible dialogue with some people who jump all over the place in their posts.

Then it's said: "At the time, Feldman was looking at the big picture and not the finer details. Keith has confirmed to me that Feldman would not have known, nor concerned himself with the date of Mike's first call to Doreen, which he would only have read in 2003, in Ripper Diary. He was working on vague dates from 1989 for the diary coming from the house and only knew it finally arrived in London in April 1992." This is all completely irrelevant to my post and seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was saying.

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 01-09-2018, 12:52 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
So a conspiracy involving an author and/or penman/woman, happily handing over total control of the hoax to Mike, a compulsive liar?
(emphasis added)

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.

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.

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 01-09-2018, 12:56 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

It's amazing that I complained only yesterday about the slow drip of information and today we have more of the same.

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, although we do not have the words of Martin-Wright himself but of a third person who might have heard it directly from Martin-Wright but equally might have heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else. We simply haven't been told.

What we are told is that Martin-Wright thinks he bought a hall stand at about the same time as the APS shop conversation but we are not told why he thinks this or how he can be sure the two events are connected. Equally important is that we are not told WHEN Martin-Wright suddenly made this connection between the purchase of the hall stand and the APS shop conversation and WHEN he checked his diary entry regarding the hall stand purchase. Did he make the connection back in 1997, a full twenty years ago, when he first told the story to researchers, or was it only in the last few months?

The APS story is really a sorry saga. Shirley Harrison dated it to late 1991. Why? Was this based on what Martin-Wright said in 1997? Or did he say it was late 1992 and she became confused when she first published the story?

According to Shirley: "Mr Martin-Wright confirmed that the above events occurred a month or two after his shop opened in October 1991" (to which Shirley adds that this "appeared to fit conveniently with April 1992, the month that Michael Barrett bought the Diary to London").

Did Martin-Wright inform Shirley that his shop opened in October 1991? Did he, in 1997, connect his conversation about the Diary with his purchase of a hall stand? Or was this connection first made in 2017 or even 2018?

Equally mysterious is why Robert Smith stated in his book that the APS shop opened, and the conversation occurred, in late 1992 without any mention that Harrison had dated both events to late 1991. One would have thought that this discrepancy demanded explanation but none was provided. The only attempt to support the dating of the conversation was said to be because Martin-Wright believed that Davies came into the shop "close to Christmas" although why he believed this is not stated nor did Martin-Wright apparently say anything about the connection with his purchase of a hall stand.

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 01-09-2018, 01:02 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

For the record, my knowledge of forensic document examination comes from reading books on the subject.

Anyone who does take the time to read such books will quickly find that there are limits to what science can tell us about the dating of disputed documents.

In fact, McNeil developed his unique and expensive ion migration test for the very reason that there was no test available to document examiners to date when ink was applied to paper. All that could be done was date the paper itself. This is why experts could be fooled by a forger using correct paper from the period in question.

Ink could of course be tested for ingredients which did not exist in the period in question but there was no way of testing (other than the solubility test) for when a document was actually written.

The fact that I need to explain this well known fact, strongly suggests to me that someone has not read any books on forensic document examination and has been labouring under the false impression that if someone like Mike Barrett had attempted to forge a Victorian diary it would have been exposed immediately by scientific experts. Sadly, this has never been the case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 01-09-2018, 01:11 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

All I'm saying about the ink used to forge the diary is that it might have been a different ink to Diamine (or, if one prefers, that it definitely WAS a different ink to Diamine). That is all. I don't need to explain who decided to use it or how it was acquired. It might have come from the Bluecoat Chambers art shop or it might from another shop. I don't believe everything Mike says in his affidavit. But one thing I will add is that this constant bleating about how no-one in 1992 would have trusted Mike Barrett to do anything is absolutely ridiculous. Prior to April 1992 (and certainly prior to the time he started drinking) I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Mike was an incompetent person. On the contrary, he was a professional freelance journalist who interviewed a number of celebrities and even the Diary Defenders believe that he was the first person Eddie Lyons turned to when he wanted to make money from the Diary. What is certain is that Mike DID competently interest Doreen Montgomery and Robert Smith in the Diary and he DID competently ensure that money was made from it. Using the drunken, shambolic, Mike from post 1992 and then assuming that he was like that in and before 1992 strikes me as a dreadful failure of imagination.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 01-09-2018, 01:38 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
I must be getting old and less observant, 'cause I missed the part about the tits.
it looks like it has large hairy mammalian protruberances.

the video is also an extremely good hoax IMHO.
.
__________________
"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
  #368  
Old 01-09-2018, 02:43 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

How disappointing that we still have no idea who Vinny Dring was (other than an electrician, supposedly) or when he worked in Battlecrease during the renovation work. None of the timesheets produced appear to show Dring working in Battlecrease at any time, so if he found two books in James Maybrick's dressing room, which he told Harrison and Evemy that he had "a clear recollection" of doing, it's a total mystery as to when this occurred. But then those dodgy timesheets don't really tell us who worked at Battlecrease, do they?

Mr Dring has been totally whitewashed from the story on the basis, we are told by the person who knows everything, that there is no evidence to link his alleged discovery with "the diary" even though there is no evidence to link Eddie's alleged discovery with the diary either! The other reason, we are told, is that there is no evidence to connect Dring with Deveruex or Barrett despite there being no real evidence to connect Eddie with them either.

In a wonderful non-sequitur we are told that "if they were thrown in a skip at some point in the 1980s and never seen or heard of since, there's not a lot even James Johnston can do to find them now.". Well I never even mentioned James Johnston in this context let alone suggest he might be able to find books thrown into a skip more than 25 years ago! But he could, presumably, have interviewed Dring, although, despite his penchant for interviewing living people who were "involved", he doesn't seem to have been interested. And I love the way that this alleged discovery is now said to have happened "at some point in the 1980s" although no date is provided in Inside Story.

And did he say he found the books behind the window panelling? That's not stated in Inside Story.

Is there evidence that Dring worked in Battlecrease during the 1980s? If so, why could one of those books not have been the Diary? According to Inside Story, Harrison believed his story "offered one plausible explanation for why the Diary emerged when it did." Was that nonsense then?

Or was Dring simply lying about his discovery? Was Paul Dodd right to think that the electricians were involved in a "scam" to pretend that they had discovered the Diary?

Just a coincidence is it, that Arthur Rigby said he recalled something (possibly a diary) being put into a skip in Battlecrease and Dring actually claimed to throw something (possibly a diary) into a skip at Battlecrease?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 01-10-2018, 07:07 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
One can only deal with the evidence that is known and on that evidence, in the light of Mike's known attempt to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages and the known use of the twentieth century expression "one off instance" in the Diary, it's difficult to conceive of any explanation other than a modern forgery.
That's fine, David. Naturally you can only deal with the evidence that you know about - or are prepared to accept - and we know all about your difficulties in conceiving of any explanation other than your own.

You complained that James ran away without answering all your questions or giving you more of the witness testimony he has managed to obtain. So right there is your acknowledgement that there is more evidence out there you do not yet know about, which means you are obliged to form your views from limited information.

Expressing those views, however, is not an obligation but a choice. You could have waited to see what else there is out there before committing yourself. It's been 25 years now and we're all still learning, so there was no mad rush to nail your colours to the mast.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 01-10-2018, 07:52 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
That's fine, David. Naturally you can only deal with the evidence that you know about - or are prepared to accept - and we know all about your difficulties in conceiving of any explanation other than your own.

You complained that James ran away without answering all your questions or giving you more of the witness testimony he has managed to obtain. So right there is your acknowledgement that there is more evidence out there you do not yet know about, which means you are obliged to form your views from limited information.

Expressing those views, however, is not an obligation but a choice. You could have waited to see what else there is out there before committing yourself. It's been 25 years now and we're all still learning, so there was no mad rush to nail your colours to the mast.

Love,

Caz
X
Various colours have been nailed to this particular mast from day one, for a quarter of a century, Caz. I think David is well within his rights to speculate based on the current state of the evidence. I'm reasonably sure he would have the integrity to admit it if the preponderance of any new evidence tilted the probability-seesaw the other way. But as it is, I've read not a word so far about timesheets and floorboards that comes close to equaling the evidentiary weight of the only provable provenance - a man who was a wannabe writer, who had made efforts to procure a Victorian diary with a minimum number of blank pages, and who at one stage swore an affadavit admitting his part in the forgery. The reason I keep coming back to that tedious fact can be found by noting once more the title of this thread.

The more we discuss the agonizingly convoluted and minute details of who said what or knew what about when floorboards were possibly lifted, or the over-hyped timesheets that very possibly don't give us the whole story in any case, none of which has produced a single iota of clean and clear evidence that the Diary originated in Battlecrease, the more we lose sight of the wood, and get lost in the trees. That said, I'm impressed by David's analysis of the floorboard-insinuation-chronology, and I know that someone has to do that tedious dirty work. Waiting until all the evidence is in before arguing a case isn't necessarily as virtuous as it might sound: David is ensuring that huge castles aren't built on foundations of sand, knowing only too well that if the drip-drip-drip of information isn't challenged at each point then we eventually get fed an enormous pre-prepared meal that might fool us with a tasty appearance had David not been checking the ingredients one by one as the meal was prepared, and shouting warnings from the kitchen like "carcinogenic colourings!" - "non-nutritive crunch-enhancer!" - "dementia-linked dopamine-inducer!". I for one value his thoroughness, and it's hardly fair to criticise a man for evaluating the evidence as it stands.
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 01:24 PM.


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