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:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 8 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Joshua Rogan 8 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 9 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - by c.d. 9 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (18 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (13 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (5 posts)
General Discussion: Mystery photographs found in car-boot sale box - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (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
  #1021  
Old 02-15-2018, 10:04 AM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Itís all part of the mystery......wooooooo
Mystery or not, why knock it? At least questions are being answered.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1022  
Old 02-15-2018, 11:16 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 360
Default

Hi Keith. Referring to Post #976.

I've read my fair share of 'true crime' over the years, and I can safely say that I've never come across a single case where someone hired a private detective to prove his own guilt!

The scenario you suggest is, I dare say, 'unique in the annals of crime.'

The question I would raise is whether your characterization that Barrett hired Gray in order to 'help him prove he had forged the Diary,' is what some might consider "spin," in so far as it implies that Barrett was so utterly clueless about the origins of the Diary that he would need to hire a detective in order to concoct a false confession.

But I hope this isn't what you are implying, or is it?

If so, can you point to any instance where Gray can be shown doing this? That he was helping Mike concoct false evidence?

Yes, I am familiar with the interviews, and the information was clearly flowing from Barrett to Gray--not the other way around. Further, what Mike was saying often went straight over Gray's head. Gray didn't appear to be a student of either the Maybrick case nor the Whitechapel Murder case, and thus would have been a singularly poor choice for concocting a false confession, if that is indeed what your are suggesting.

If we look at 1994/5 from Mike's angle, his wife and child were 'missing,' he felt he was being 'hoodwinked' about the Diary, his royalties were being held up, and Feldman was harassing and threatening him. Whether any of these claims are true or merely Mike's paranoia I cannot say, but from Mike's angle any of these would have been reason enough to hire a P.I.

I have no reason to doubt Paul Begg's assessment that Barrett hated Feldman, but this tells us absolutely zero about the veracity of Mike's affidavit, because if he was the hoaxer and was 'coming clean,' (or threatening to do so) it would have achieved exactly the same thing. Is this not so?

Finally, I believe Gray was hired for different reasons, but over time--and at Barrett's bidding--the affidavit was created as 'leverage' against Feldman and, perhaps, Smith. Mike was quite simply pissed (in the American sense, Caz!) and wanted to strike a blow. And, of course, Barrett did prove inside knowledge of the Diary's origins with his account of Martin Earl and the purchase of the potential raw materials (since verified) and his remarkable citation of the Crashaw quote. RP
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1023  
Old 02-15-2018, 11:25 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 360
Default

Keith, one other minor question. The manuscript/transcript of the Diary found on Barrett's word processor has been discussed for nearly 20 years on this site but has never been made available, and neither Feldman, Harrison, nor you, Morris, nor Linder, have reproduced it in your books. How long was this manuscript, if I may ask? Was it approximately 40 pages in length?

I think everyone would agree that this is a key point that needs to be resolved. Thanks.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1024  
Old 02-15-2018, 11:31 AM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,184
Default

Perhaps it is me.. being totally dense..forgive me. .but...

Keith Skinner has suggested..WAY back in this thread..the 'biscuit tin story' should be taken with a "pinch of salt".

Ok. Let's do that. It isn't true. So?

It means that no Diary..ring..or watch can possibly have been found under the floorboards..because there wasn't a tin to find them in.

So whomever has peddled this ruse from the start and onwards..up to very recently (last summer to my knowledge) is guilty of peddling untruths.
Worse..the basis of the story expands into the story of the Diary itself. If the electricians did NOT find a tin with watch or ring or Diary in from under the floorboards..if any author or commentator has pushed the story as true.. then it is only right that such people stand up and be taken into account for their comments and/or actions.

Maybe it is me. Maybe I'm being obtuse and dense. But I do know this..it is high bloody time this form of shenanigans in this field stops..once and for all.

As Simon Wood rightly surmises..before all of this nonsense. No person close to death would have the energy to pull up floorboards..nailed floorboards. It is a total joke to believe that could happen. Therefore.. ANY story re floorboards emanating after such an improbable action is totally worthless.

Imho some people have a heck of a lot to answer for. Promoting rubbish to carry on this farce further is tantamount to sacrilege.

Perhaps Im just being too hard on the poor little s*ds.
perhaps not.....


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1025  
Old 02-15-2018, 11:51 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Hello Phil,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the biscuit tin story depend entirely on the hearsay account of Alan Davies, who wasn't even present when the diary, or whatever it was, was supposedly discovered under the floorboards?

Fair point about Maybrick being far too infirm to lift, and presumsbly nail back down, the floorboards.

Last edited by John G : 02-15-2018 at 11:53 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1026  
Old 02-15-2018, 12:47 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 360
Default

Hi Phil. On March 9, 1992, at the time of this alleged sighting under Dodd's floorboards, the Maybrick watch was sitting in the window of a jewelry shop in Wirral. Ronald Murphy, the shop's owner, signed a statement confirming this, and he had already owned the watch for a couple of years. If someone said they saw it under floorboards in March '92, they are lying.

Thus, Albert's coincidental purchase of the Maybrick watch in July 1992 -- only 4 months after the floorboards "had been lifted for the first time in 100 years!"--must be written-off as yet another amazing chronological coincidence, unless both he and Murphy are also allowed into the 'nest of liars.' I'm not sure how this one will pay out.

I think the Diary supporters may have soured to the biscuit tin story on realizing the difficulty of squeezing a 12 x 8 scrapbook into a 9 x 6 tin, though at least one champion of the Leeds report appears to still believe this is theoretically possible.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1027  
Old 02-15-2018, 12:51 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hello Phil,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the biscuit tin story depend entirely on the hearsay account of Alan Davies, who wasn't even present when the diary, or whatever it was, was supposedly discovered under the floorboards?

Fair point about Maybrick being far too infirm to lift, and presumsbly nail back down, the floorboards.
well
hiding under the floor boards isn't that big a deal. he could have had loose ones where he used deliberately to stash stuff.

but this is a trifling matter compared to the zero provenance battlecrease scenario and that he woudnt have stashed it anywhere because the author says he wants it to be found. he would have just left it out.

oh and because it implies maybrick wrote the diary!!
__________________
"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
  #1028  
Old 02-15-2018, 12:53 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Hi Phil. On March 9, 1992, at the time of this alleged sighting under Dodd's floorboards, the Maybrick watch was sitting in the window of a jewelry shop in Wirral. Ronald Murphy, the shop's owner, signed a statement confirming this, and he had already owned the watch for a couple of years. If someone said they saw it under floorboards in March '92, they are lying.

Thus, Albert's coincidental purchase of the Maybrick watch in July 1992 -- only 4 months after the floorboards "had been lifted for the first time in 100 years!"--must be written-off as yet another amazing chronological coincidence, unless both he and Murphy are also allowed into the 'nest of liars.' I'm not sure how this one will pay out.

I think the Diary supporters may have soured to the biscuit tin story on realizing the difficulty of squeezing a 12 x 8 scrapbook into a 9 x 6 tin, though at least one champion of the Leeds report appears to still believe this is theoretically possible.
Hi RJ
whats the big deal with the watch? coudnt anyone buy an old watch and scratch something on it? I mean the diary was already known by then, no?
__________________
"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
  #1029  
Old 02-15-2018, 01:20 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 360
Default

Hi Abbey. That would be a good question for Keith, Caz, and Iconoclast.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1030  
Old 02-15-2018, 01:45 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi RJ
whats the big deal with the watch? coudnt anyone buy an old watch and scratch something on it? I mean the diary was already known by then, no?
Well, since RJP has asked, the most obvious implausible in your mooted version of events is the microspcopic fragments [I would need to check my phraseology here but I'm in a hurry] which indicated the etchings were made many tens of years earlier.

Someone once said that that was easy to fake.

Naturally!
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 12:35 AM.


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