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:
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - by MrBarnett 2 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - by MrBarnett 11 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (40 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (12 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (12 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - (6 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (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
  #491  
Old 01-17-2018, 04:05 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Would it be presumptuous to ask, Caz, that you lay out briefly what you currently suspect to have happened? With the caveat that of course investigation is ongoing and the evidence cuurrently incomplete?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 01-17-2018, 04:05 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
It would be just plain weird for an old forgery to have been hidden there while the pranksters all slowly died-off with no intellectual satisfaction.
The forgers would not necessarily have to be the ones who put it under the floorboards.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 01-17-2018, 04:11 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
The forgers would not necessarily have to be the ones who put it under the floorboards.
That's very true, Scott.

And here we go - down the rabbithole One hypothesis built on another, added layers of hypothesis brought in to paper over the cracks in the first layers, and further layers will be needed when holes are discovered in the cosmetic second layers.

I'm just going to call my friend Occam and ask him to get sharpening. He's going to be required here.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 01-18-2018, 05:45 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Was he treated in hospital for alcoholism prior to April 1992? I don't think so.
You are probably right, but in my long experience [I was married to a very heavy drinker, who had at least one alcoholic relative] people don't become full-on alcoholics overnight. Those I knew had always been heavy drinkers, but managed to handle it for many many years before it got the better of them. I assume only Anne would know how heavy Mike's drinking was at any time prior to 1992. According to an article in the Daily Post, from September 1998, Anne claimed that Mike had begun 'drinking heavily' in 1988, which was when they moved to Goldie Street. But then Anne is not exactly a reliable source, so who knows? Clearly, Shirley and co could only comment on what Mike was like drunk and sober after April 1992, and would have known as much as you or I about earlier years whenever Mike was having a hard time of it, with health, work related or financial problems and so on.

Quote:
And we are also told by Harrison: it was clear that when he drank he lost his grasp on reality. As quoted above, "another side would emerge when he was drinking".

So it's perfectly obvious that Mike needs to be judged at a time when he was sober because if he was relatively sober prior to April 1992 it could make a huge difference to his capabilities.
I agree, but we can't judge him if we don't know how sober he was, during the period he is meant to have been working on the diary's creation. Maybe Anne dated his heavy drinking back to 1988 to cover that period?

Quote:
But none of us can say anything about Mike's creative writing skills or his personality prior to April 1992 (nor Anne's) nor can any of us say anything about his capabilities or abilities to produce the diary, especially in concert with Anne.
I recall at least one example of Mike's unaided work, from before 1992, in the form of a rude riddle, which was not published for painfully obvious reasons. Presumably it was not something Anne fancied 'tidying up' for him.

It's a pity the same JtR and Maybrick sources identified by others as a modern forger's 'must have' literature didn't feature in Mike's research notes or any of the interviews he gave, or even when he was making his forgery claims. Not even when steaming drunk did anything slip out to support the idea that he knew what these sources were, never mind used them himself.

That might help rj with his 'novella' theory, because he could simply say it was Anne who did all the research, which would also explain why Mike appeared to know so little about the two subjects when both Paul Begg and Keith talked to him in the early days.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 01-18-2018, 06:36 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
In what world, I wonder, does the expression "made available" mean published in a book?

When I said "if you quote from one part of a document the rest of it needs to be made available" how is it possible, even for the Great Misunderstander, to think that I am saying that an author has to "quote every word of every source document or refrain from quoting anything at all"?

Surely it's not possible for someone to be so confused is it?

But it actually seems to have happened.
I used Inside Story as an example, because when you wrote "made available", I assumed you meant "to all", which implies in the public domain, in whatever form. I'm not sure what difference it makes whether quotes selected from a longer transcript are "made available" here, on a website, or in print in a book. But evidently you have a huge problem with the former for some reason.

Quote:
And why would the same person then say "Inside Story could never have been published on that basis"? What did they have to hide I wonder?
You thought that was what I meant? Really?? Even though I gave you the bleedin' obvious reason, that the book would have been 'the size of Croydon' had we quoted entire transcripts of every conversation recorded???

Quote:
It should be perfectly obvious that one should not quote selectively from documents which no-one else can check.
But apparently you aren't bothered when it's done in book form? Is that what you're saying, because I fully admit I am confused about where and why you are drawing the line?

Quote:
I made the same point when I referred to it being disgraceful that Mike's research notes were being withheld even though Shirley Harrison had quoted partially from them and used them to support her rebuttal to Melvin Harris.
Shirley Harrison is an author who quoted partially from those notes. So perhaps you will understand - or perhaps not - why I thought you considered it disgraceful for any author not to "quote every word of every source document or refrain from quoting anything at all". How are you distinguishing between what you say requires full disclosure and what doesn't? Mike's notes were not 'being withheld', in the sense of being kept away from the public because of what they would reveal -
quite the contrary in fact, as anyone who has now studied them must surely appreciate.

Quote:
Furthermore, we are talking about a situation where I directly requested James Johnston to release the full transcript of his interviews from which he had selectively quoted. Yet he point blank refused (giving a feeble excuse for doing so). It's just not good enough. Does Johnston have an obligation to release those transcripts in full? Yes, he obviously does.
Because, as with the research notes, you want them put in the public domain, and you want them yesterday? How do we know you won't come back tonight and directly request someone release the full transcripts of every diary or watch related interview ever quoted from, and declare it disgraceful that they haven't all already been made public?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-18-2018 at 06:45 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 01-18-2018, 07:29 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Here's an amusing incident.

In one of my posts, four days ago, I said:

"What I'm saying is that you can't selectively quote from a privately held document (or transcript) while withholding the rest of it. Especially when, as in this case, parts of the transcript contradict the case being made." (bold added)

Having quoted this in full, the Great Misunderstander then replied this afternoon as follows:

"Well you can, actually. Inside Story had to do that or become the size of Croydon."

Oops! So there we had an admission that the authors of Inside Story selectively referred to privately held transcripts while deliberately withholding those parts of the same transcripts which contradicted the case being made in the book!

But the Great Misunderstander realised what she'd done four minutes later and deleted the second sentence from the quotation.
Yes, highly amusing, David. Do you sit there, just waiting to pounce on my every word, like a sad person? It's obvious why I made that deletion - my response, referring only to Inside Story, did not apply to that part of your post. No 'case' was made in our book, as we all had different views.

Quote:
Instead we just had the nonsensical response that Inside Story would have become the size of Croydon. No, it wouldn't. As I said above, you just make the documents on which the book is based available for an independent person or researcher to check that they have been used properly and not selectively.
Ah, all is now clear. So David wasn't requesting that James make his transcripts available to all, nor even to David, but just to 'an independent person or researcher'. It's a pity that wasn't made clear in the first place, and of course, for all David knows James had already done this long before any request of the sort was made here. Is James now obliged to come back and tell David how many independent people and researchers he has made his privately held transcripts available to and when?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-18-2018 at 07:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 01-18-2018, 07:57 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
All I said was that unless it can be proved that the APS shop conversation did not take place in 1993 any investigation into that conversation will be a waste of time. I haven't told anyone not to investigate it or not to waste their time (should it in fact turn out to be a waste of time). Many investigations turn out to be a waste of time. That doesn't mean one should not investigate. And I have never told anyone not to investigate.

But I repeat that unless it can be positively established that the investigation...
[you mean conversation, I presume?]

Quote:
...did not take place in 1993 any investigation into the APS shop conversation will be a waste of time. The reason for this is that it will always leave open the possibility that the comments by Davies were influenced on a belief developed by researchers in 1993 that the diary came from under the floorboards.
Nope, sorry. I still can't make any sense out of this. Were you really just saying that investigating will have been a waste of time if that investigation ends up failing to rule out 1993 for the conversation? If so, then no shi* Sherlock and may I suggest it was a complete waste of time saying it in the first place? Silly old me, imagining you were actually struggling to tell me something other than the bleedin' obvious.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:35 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The latest sleight of hand from the Great Misrememberer needs to be exposed.

In post #372, on 10th Jan, responding to my #331 of 8th Jan, the Great Misrememberer said:

"Anne, remember, wanted none of the spoils until Doreen finally persuaded her, in 1994 when she had left Mike, to take a share of the royalties for Caroline's sake. What would have been in it for Anne in 1992, to have helped concoct this thing with Mike? So she could watch him getting it published and pissing all his royalties against the wall?"

At this stage, RJ had not posted his "novella" theory (which he did in #375).

I then said (in #381):

"Did I really just read someone asking what motive a woman could have for collaborating in a financial venture with her husband? Seriously?????!!!!"...
I shan't bother quoting or addressing the rest of this, David. Had you done yourself and everyone else here a favour by using the quote function [and if it would cause you too much distress to name the poster, you can always 'wrap tags around selected text' as I often do after the initial quote, just for convenience - see my previous post for a handy example], you could have shown exactly what it was that you had 'just read', and I'd have known exactly which post you were taking issue with this time. This would significantly lessen the chances of misunderstandings leading to endless repetition, clarification and accusations of 'sleight of hand' and suchlike.

It's hard enough trying to catch up with every sodding issue you have with my posts, without you making it twice as hard by not being able to bring yourself to quote me directly, like any reasonable adult.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-18-2018 at 08:39 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:52 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

David and Caz,

This is all getting rather tense.

You two aren't husband and wife by any chance, are you?

I think you'll end up falling in love. This is usually the way these things start.

*wistful sigh*
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:58 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 586
Default

What I wanna know, is if we're supposed to believe this entirely nonsensical story about the electricians finding this book under the floor, then why did they bother making a bunch of shite up in the process, such as visiting universities?

I thought the whole point in the conference was to provide this damning evidence that it actually was an old artifact and actually had been found at Battlecrease? Yet here are, with zilch to show for any of it. Still, those tickets for the conference must've garnered a few quid, eh?

And the beat goes on.
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 01:33 AM.


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