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 2 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 3 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 3 hours ago.
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - by Mayerling 4 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Sherlock Houses 5 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by OneRound 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (28 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (7 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (6 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (4 posts)
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (2 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
  #621  
Old 01-24-2018, 09:48 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
Stolen property has to be returned however far down the chain it goes and if the Diary had been stolen from Dodd it was Dodd's property, not Smith's.
Presumably Robert is well aware of this, despite his efforts over the past two decades, to prove the diary was in Dodd's house up until March 9th, 1992.

Quote:
But, strangely, Mike's denial that it came from Battlecrease, we are told, "doesn't make much sense". Why not? Well, we are told it's because "he wasn't yet in confession mode". Er!! So if Mike is not in confession mode he can't deny that the diary came from Battlecrease?? Does that make any sense at all? The opposing point is that he knew the diary had been forged so, of course, he will deny that it came from Battlecrease.
At the time, Mike was adamant the diary was given to him by Tony Devereux, who died without saying where he had got it from. That's what he needed everyone to believe in April 1993, when he even swore an affidavit to that effect. So he slipped up by denying the possibility of it being in Battlecrease until 1989. How was he meant to know it wasn't? He clearly had his own reasons for not wanting anyone to believe it came from the house, but that's different from claiming to know it didn't.

Love,

Alice in Wonderland
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 01-24-2018, 11:21 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
What do you make of Mike's...use of the past tense when describing what it 'was' of?
Hi Caz. I think that would be a most interesting question to ask Caroline Barrett.

But, just for a moment, forget the depressed donkeys and the mules in mourning and think it through on a HUMAN level. Perhaps you've had this experience. Way back in childhood, you told a lie. You felt ashamed by it, and, as time passed, it ate away at your insides. You wished to tell your parents the truth, to get it "off your chest," but couldn't quite bring yourself to do it, because you knew they would be so terribly disappointed. In that situation, might you not 'drop a hint'?

Quote:
KS: I think I have a faint memory of Anne telling me they had both watched the Michael Caine 1988 television drama
I hope I am forgiven for saying so, but is it possible Anne is 'dropping the hint,' and Keith simply isn't listening?
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 01-24-2018, 11:26 AM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,734
Default

Originally Posted by David Orsam --
"Stolen property has to be returned however far down the chain it goes and if the Diary had been stolen from Dodd it was Dodd's property, not Smith's."


Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Presumably Robert is well aware of this, despite his efforts over the past two decades, to prove the diary was in Dodd's house up until March 9th, 1992.
Considering all the bullsh!t that had been slung regarding the providence of this photo album cum diary, it would be understandable for Mr. Smith to latch onto the the best scenario out of what is in whole or part a pack of lies to gain something - financial or personal or both - from his possession of and involvement in this long controversial object he acquired in obvious hopes of some benefit, despite some smaller cowpies he might have to step over?

After all, a Battlecrease providence provides the missing link, does it not? Too bad things still have to be shoehorned in a tight timespot anyway...such is suspect based Ripperology.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

Last edited by Hunter : 01-24-2018 at 11:34 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 01-24-2018, 12:01 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
One other thing about Bookdealer's instructions is that it is stated that lists were printed in the next issue "Strictly in the order received". In the 19th March 1992 issue, the lists for 'Books Wanted' commenced on page 9 and concluded on page 156. Martin Earl's list featured on page 69.
Sorry this requires correction, it should have said page 127, not page 156. So the last part should read:

In the 19th March 1992 issue, the lists for 'Books Wanted' commenced on page 9 and concluded on page 127. Martin Earl's list featured on page 69.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 01-24-2018, 12:02 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
Considering all the bullsh!t that had been slung regarding the providence of this photo album cum diary, it would be understandable for Mr. Smith to latch onto the the best scenario out of what is in whole or part a pack of lies to gain something - financial or personal or both - from his possession of and involvement in this long controversial object he acquired in obvious hopes of some benefit, despite some smaller cowpies he might have to step over?
Mind you, as we've been told, he only paid £1 for ownership of the diary so he would hardly suffer a serious financial loss if it was taken away from him.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 01-24-2018, 12:24 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The only question to ask about Mike's rejection of the offer put to him by Feldman is: Does Mike's rejection of that offer suggest that he believed the diary came from under the floorboards of Battlecrease? Or to put the same question another way: Does Mike's rejection of that offer suggest that he was not involved in forging the diary?

Clearly the answer to this question, whichever way it is phrased, is a resounding NO. His rejection of the offer is perfectly consistent with the diary being a recent forgery. That being the case, there isn't much more to say.

But I would add by way of comment that to answer this question in the negative one doesn't have to assume that giving up 5% would have meant more to Mike than the chance to give his recently faked diary a "Dodd endorsed provenance". Leaving aside that the deal did not involve Dodd endorsing anything (the deal was merely for Dodd not to contest ownership), and leaving aside that the expression "perfect provenance" now seems to be abandoned, it must be obvious that on a point of principle, Mike might not have wanted to give up a single penny of his money to someone who didn't deserve it on the basis of what he would have known to be a phoney and thoroughly bad provenance.

And, in any case, if the electrician continued to claim that he found the diary in 1989, Mike would have had a Battlecrease provenance for the diary in the public domain (and one that was perfectly consistent with his Tony Devereux story) without having to give up a penny. As he didn't even own the diary at this time what did he really have to lose? If it is said that he wouldn't have wanted to risk 100% ownership transferring to Dodd then his motivation would have been exactly the same if the diary HAD come up from the floorboards in March 1992. In other words, if the Battlecrease provenance was genuine and Mike was worried that Dodd might end up owning the diary due to anticipated financial loss, then giving up just 5% might have made sense if Dodd's ownership could have stopped him making ANY money from the diary.

Finally, it's pointless to say that Mike wasn't going to admit getting the diary from a thief in 1992 because that wasn't what he was being asked to accept. The deal from Feldman was very clear. It was based on an electrician admitting that he had taken the diary from Battlecrease in 1989. So Mike could have stuck with his Tony Devereux story if he had wanted to accept the deal. But his rejection of it simply cannot help us in knowing if the diary was a recent forgery or not.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 01-24-2018, 01:43 PM
johns johns is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post

What do you make of Mike's claim that he kept this particular photo back, and his use of the past tense when describing what it 'was' of?
He may have used "was" instead of "is" accidentally. I work with a guy who uses incorrect words all day long. "Let's see where we am" is one of his favourite phrases. Doesn't mean anything really.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 01-24-2018, 02:07 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johns View Post
He may have used "was" instead of "is" accidentally.
It's safe to assume that, given that it was taken circa 1937, the photograph's subject definitely was a "was" by the time MB found it in the scrapbook

Besides, I don't find it particularly odd to say something like: "Ten years ago I found a photograph in my bottom drawer. It was of Elvis". It doesn't mean that I no longer have said photo.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 01-24-2018 at 02:11 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 01-24-2018, 02:27 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
It's safe to assume that, given that it was taken circa 1937, the photograph's subject definitely was a "was" by the time MB found it in the scrapbook

Besides, I don't find it particularly odd to say something like: "Ten years ago I found a photograph in my bottom drawer. It was of Elvis". It doesn't mean that I no longer have said photo.
At last. The obvious answer. Well done Gareth. The majority of people are less than precise in their vocabulary, especially when talking aloud. People who are talking about something that happened in the past tend to continue using the past tense for the duration of the sentence, or even the paragraph. Gareth's example is bang-on. Maybe Caz has been watching too many detective dramas, and has seen too may husbands of 'missing' wives give their guilt away by describing the wife in the past tense.

By the way, Gareth - what's the provenance of this alleged Elvis photo? How did it get into your drawer? Who owned the drawers before you? Highly suspicious that you mention it now, only a couple of weeks after the 83rd anniversary of his birth. Trying to cash-in, Gareth?

Red flags everywhere. Not buying it, not at all.

Gareth: taking my cue from the 'Namesakes Series' of audiobooks described in 'This Is Spinal Tap', how about Fern Hill, read by Benny Hill?

Last edited by Henry Flower : 01-24-2018 at 02:37 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 01-24-2018, 02:31 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
I hope I am forgiven for saying so, but is it possible Anne is 'dropping the hint,' and Keith simply isn't listening?
The Michael Caine drama? The one where Abberline is given entirely spurious prominence in the hunt for the Ripper, becoming the killer's nemesis? That one?

Now what the hell could connect that with the Diary???
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 08:44 AM.


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