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:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Scott Nelson 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Diary Quirks - by Mike J. G. 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring a Life - by Mike J. G. 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Mike J. G. 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (13 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (8 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (4 posts)
Maybrick, James: New Thoughts On The “diary” - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring a Life - (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
  #421  
Old 01-12-2018, 09:12 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Thanks, Caz. It sounds like a good description of someone who might perpetrate a hoax.
How did I guess this response was coming?

Confirmation bias, anyone?

Mike's more outrageous, obviously false claims were made, according to Shirley, since his January 1995 affidavit. Not back in 1992 when David fondly imagines he was the model of sobriety and fully in control of all his forging faculties.

So it's equally valid to infer it's a good description of a shambolic drunkard making desperate stuff up in the wake of his world falling apart and not really expecting anyone to fall for it hook line and sinker.

And yes, that's also confirmation bias.

But whose is nearer to the truth?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 01-12-2018, 09:27 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Did I really just read someone asking what motive a woman could have for collaborating in a financial venture with her husband? Seriously?????!!!!

I mean, does this need any response? I don't think so.
I think rj's argument was that Anne felt she had no choice and didn't collaborate happily or willingly in this financial venture of her husband's to flog her 'novella', as rj calls it, as a genuine Victorian diary. But you might want to check with the man himself.

We know that this woman refused any share of the monies until Doreen persuaded her, two years later when she had left her husband, for Caroline's sake. We don't know what motive she had for collaboration without remuneration.

So frankly, I'm not sure what all those punctuation marks are for. Have you lost the plot???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 01-12-2018, 11:32 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

What motive she had for collaboration without remuneration??????!!!!!!!

She was his wife for gawdsake!!!!!!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 01-12-2018, 11:36 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The Great Misunderstander strikes again.

I didn't, of course, say that every piece of information needs to be included in essays, dissertations, books or documentaries, only that if you quote from one part of a document the rest of it needs to be made available.

Most books, documentaries etc. are based on information publicly available in archives or libraries. So anyone with an interest in the subject can check the way that information has been used. 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.

I thought that was perfectly clear when I said "If you refer to one part of a document or a transcript the rest of the document or transcript needs to be made available" AND "I'm not saying you need to publish all your research before you are ready but it's just not right to selectively quote from documents or transcripts to which others don't have access."

Surely that was written in the clearest possible English and not capable of being misunderstood.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 01-12-2018, 11:46 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I'm not sure there's much more to say on this subject. While a team of frustrated researchers apparently scurry around the country trying to find the one missing piece of evidence to prove the Battlecrease provenance that was supposed to have been proved by the last missing piece of evidence, the situation, as it seems to me, is that, until any new evidence is produced (and we may have to wait a long time for that), the possibility that Mike and/or Anne were involved in forging the diary must remain a serious one.

It's simply amazing that the point is made that Mike wasn't a professional freelance journalist simply because his wife might have helped him with his articles. As I've previously said, all this means is that Mike and Anne jointly were a team of professional freelance journalists so that they could have forged the diary together. It's utterly hilarious that we are told that Mike's articles were "presumably" edited by the magazine before publication. So just like every article written by all journalists in the world then???! It just shows how any notion that Mike could have been a journalist sticks in the throat of some people who have spent years saying he was too stupid to string a sentence together.

Furthermore, whenever I refer to something that Mike Barrett said had happened I am virtually laughed out of the forum by one person with the repeated chant "Mike was a liar, Mike was a liar" yet, when it suits, that same person is perfectly prepared to support an argument by saying Mike "admitted he couldn't write up those interviews in a coherent fashion and needed Anne to do it for him". So suddenly something Mike has said is taken to be 100% true!!!

That's if he even said it because I've never seen a direct quote from him actually saying exactly this. All I've ever seen is Harrison (2003, p. 7) quoting Anne as saying about Mike's articles that she "usually" (note that word, which does not mean "always") "tided them up for him". And in Inside Story (2003, p.172) Mike is said to confirm Anne's account that she had to "tidy up" the celebrity interviews (although in the quote provided he just says "all the interviews, great, but could I get the articles out properly?....so Anne stepped in and I felt she was taking something away from me."). So in "tidying up" his articles, for all we know Anne was simply correcting his spelling or punctuation or making some minor adjustments. It doesn't strike me as an admission that he couldn't write up his interviews "in a coherent fashion".

I only ever mentioned the ink in this thread in response to a direct question from James about Robert Anderson's essay. I make no positive points about it. I simply commented that if the ink in the diary is not Diamine it doesn't get us very far if a forger used another type of ink. That's it. Unlike some people, I don't wish to engage in endless unsupported speculation about what might have happened or how the forgery might have been executed. It won't help anyone.

I point to one simple hard and undisputed fact about the attempt by the person who produced the Diary to obtain a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages shortly before he produced it. It doesn't really get much more suspicious than that. And I point to the appearance of the phrase "one off" in the diary to mean a unique happening which was not in use in the nineteenth century. That's really all I need to say. I can only repeat that if there is another suspected solution then there needs to be solid evidence to support it.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:40 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 356
Default

Regarding the ink changing color. An interesting (and infuriating) article by Adrian Morris.

http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/pdf%20f...20article).pdf
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 01-13-2018, 10:06 PM
ChrisGeorge ChrisGeorge is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Regarding the ink changing color. An interesting (and infuriating) article by Adrian Morris.

http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/pdf%20f...20article).pdf
Thanks, Roger. This is indeed an interesting article by Mr. Morris even if as you I have indicated, it will illuminate and frustrate the reader in equal measure.

I have to take exception with the first sentence of the last paragraph in Adrian's article, in which he states --

"The tragedy of the Maybrick 'diary' was that its central aim was to solve an old Victorian series of murders."

Really????

Given that no one knows who created the Diary how can we be certain what the intention was?
__________________
Christopher T. George
Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 01-15-2018, 06:45 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
When I said that the idea of Mike being involved in an attempt to forge the diary has been criticized "on the basis that no-one in their right mind would have handed total control of the Diary over to Mike yet those same people say that Mike was given total control of the Diary by the person or persons who found and stole it from Battlecrease!!!!" the point is all about why someone would have chosen Mike Barrett to give control of the diary to.

A child could understand this.

So why am I reading a response which tells me that an electrician finding the diary had to hand over control to someone? That's not the issue. The issue is why Mike Barrett.
A child could understand that a forgery which had taken its creator(s) considerable time, effort and research to plan, put together, compose and perfect might require a somewhat different kind of person to "do something with it" than some old book pinched from an old house and quickly offloaded.

In the second scenario, it was arguably more a case of "get rid and forget where you got it from", at least until it was realised that Mike was not going to "get rid", but make a killing by staying with it and publishing the thing. But in the first, it would have been a case of "do your best to pass this off as genuine and don't screw up along the way". Mike had to be trusted to be the front man for the long haul.

Quote:
In the first place I would have expected someone finding the diary to want to sell it as quickly as possible on the black (criminal) market using the fact that it had been found in Battlecrease as a major selling point. They would want hard cash not some form of licensing agreement.
You might have expected this, but put yourself in the shoes of the finder, having just stolen this old book. Unless you are a career criminal, how do you go about finding your black market buyer, so that you can tempt them with the provenance? First you need to have read through the old book and connected it to the house via the name Battlecrease, to appreciate its potential significance and value. If Eddie Lyons, for instance, finds this old book and liberates it from the house before he has the chance to study its contents, and without knowing who is meant to be its author, or even the history of the house, might he not just be looking to get shot of it, for a modest amount of 'hard cash', to some wide boy who does claim to know all the right contacts? Enter Mike, eager and willing to do the business. The tea leaf may not know or perhaps care what will become of it as long as his own name is kept out of it - honour among thieves and what have you. Why would 'some form of licensing agreement' enter Eddie's head if Mike doesn't yet know what lies ahead?

Quote:
I mean, if Eddie agrees with Mike that they split the proceeds, how does Eddie go about enforcing this if Mike never gives him any money? What leverage does he have? Clearly there can be no legal recourse. But it's not just about getting money, how does Eddie know he is getting his fair share? Who is going to audit Mike's income on behalf of Eddie? I'm not saying anything is impossible, only that such an arrangement in respect of stolen goods would be very unusual.
But this stolen property would be very unusual to begin with - if not unique. In a scenario whereby Eddie assumes Mike is just going to find a buyer for the physical diary and leave it at that, then later learns he is going to co-author a bloody book about it and make a potential fortune, I could see him putting the squeeze on Mike for a share of the royalties by, say, threatening to sell his confession. Isn't that precisely what he tries to do in 1993? If he is chasing the money then, why stop when Mike's royalties start rolling in? Of course, if Mike knows the diary hasn't been stolen, and Eddie has nothing on him but an empty threat, there is nothing for Mike to fear. No need to confront him on his doorstep and tell him to back off. He's the one in total control, remember. And no need to pay anyone off a year later in large sums of hard cash either. I'd still like to know what those cash withdrawals in May 1994 were really all in aid of.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:57 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Here's some great logic:

"What I find puzzling is why, if Mike really was part of this nest of forgers, he didn't seize the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon that was Feldy and the Electricians circa April 1993, by saying: "So that's what Tony was keeping from me. It must have come from the house back in 1989 or whenever, and Tony must have got hold of it and worried about what to do with it".

Do you see the problem with that sentence?

The premise is that Mike is part of a "nest of forgers" yet he is supposed to now believe his own fabricated story about getting the diary from Tony Devereux!!!!!!
Oh David, David, David. You see but you do not observe.

Why the hell would Mike have had to 'believe' a false story in order to add another????????????

If Mike had been part of this nest of forgers, he'd have been lying about getting the diary in good faith from Tony Devereux in 1991, wouldn't he? Ditto if he really got the diary from Battlecrease via an electrician in 1992. If Anne was canny enough to invent a backstory in 1994, which retained the flimsy "dead pal" story, all I was saying is that Mike could have done the same in 1993, using someone else's convenient and infinitely better, but totally false claim that it had been in Battlecrease until circa 1989. Who could have proved it hadn't? He only had to pretend to put two and two together to come up with the perfect solution: "Tony must have been the middle man between the theft from the house and leaving it to me in 1991". Simple. A neat enough explanation for how Tony had come by the diary. Yet Mike preferred his own theory that it had been in Maybrick's office before eventually getting to Tony.

Quote:
Six exclamation marks there for anyone counting.
Really a small child would not make this type of mistake.

You don't seriously think that whenever Mike said anything he must have actually believed it. Or do you?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-15-2018 at 08:05 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:12 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But what it would be very useful to know is what James Coufopoulos had to say about the lifting of the floorboards? Did he remember doing it himself? Was he assisted by anyone? In particular, did he recall the presence of Eddie Lyons?
I'm hoping James [Johnston] will return to the boards at some point with the information you seek.

Love,

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


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 05:41 PM.


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