|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
S. Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 1:29 am: | 
|
Hi
Like all new ripper researchers I am totally confused by the whole Maybrick 'merry go round' of the diary and Michael Barrett.
However I was just reading some information on another website recentlty which I found of interest. James Maybrick was a suspect before the diary came out in 1992. This, I did not know, as I always asumed the diary alone brought him into light as a suspect for JtR.
Can any person please tell me this.
1. Who pesented him as a suspect pre 1992.( was it the police)
2. MOST IMPORTANTLY: What reasons made him a suspect pre 1992.
Finally. If this Barrett did forge it,(which it looks like), then he has tried to make it plausible by choosing an existing suspect for his forgery. So does this mean that if you remove Barrett and the diary from the equation - James Maybrick is still a legitimate suspect to be studied? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1939
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Hi,
I've never heard of Maybrick being a suspect before the diary emerged.
Mike Barrett didn't do it. Anyone who claims he did (including Mike himself) has to prove it, just like anyone who came here claiming Maybrick was the ripper would have to prove that too.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on July 08, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Mike Barrett didn't do it.
And your evidence for that assertion?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2652
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
this is just getting more bizarre. Mike Barrett didn't do it?
I mean i might or might not agree, but i'd hope to see a bit of evidence either way.
Jenni
"By the power of Greyskull - I have the power!"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
Hi Chris, Jenni,
As I said, if you wish to claim he did, you have to prove it.
As others have said time and time again and got away with it: "I know James Maybrick never killed anyone", I know Mike didn't write that diary and doesn't know who did. I don't have to prove a non-event.
If you have evidence to the contrary, let's have it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Don't be ridiculous.
If you make an assertion, you have to prove it.
If you can't prove it, you don't know whether Barrett did it or not.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1945
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
How come you never practice what you just preached?
You have made an awful lot of assertions - and continue to do so - and yet you expect others to do the work to disprove them for you. You haven't yet proved one.
Mike didn't write that diary - Melvin Harris stated the very same thing and no one had the bottle to tell him not to be ridiculous.
Funny that.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
[Yet more lies ignored]
You said, in response to S. Ryan's statement that it's likely that Barrett "forged" the diary, "Mike Barrett didn't do it."
I'm asking what your evidence is for that assertion.
Chris Phillips
|
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 28
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Stop trying to have an intellectual chat about something so stupid. This whole thing stinks and you all know it. I APPRECIATE MICHAEL BARRET'S SCOUSE HUMOUR. THE POSTE HOUSE WAS A REAL GAFF! HA HA THAT IS THE REAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE SO PRASERVED. NEXT TIME I'LL RIP HIM FROM EAR TO EAR! IT HAS ME IN FITS HA HA SO MUCH SO THAT MY KIDNAE HURTS! YOURS. Martin.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
First things first, Chris.
If S. Ryan claims that it's likely that Barrett forged the diary, and I question that claim, because I've seen not one iota of evidence that makes it remotely likely (and nor has anyone else who has ever been closely involved, including Harris and Gray, who both tried hard to find proof of a modern hoax), then the onus is on S. Ryan to support the initial claim.
Hi Martin,
I see you have a lot to learn about Mike - everything in fact.
And there's no need to shout. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
You have not questioned the claim, you have flatly stated that Mike Barrett didn't do it.
Please give us the evidence for your assertion.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1948
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I am perfectly entitled to say that Mike Barrett is innocent. Melvin Harris knew it and said so too. In 13 years, no one has come close to verifying any of Mike's various confessions.
Mike should be treated the same as all ripper suspects are treated - innocent until proved guilty.
If you seriously think Mike did it, do your own research into his background, and see if you can find a jot of evidence to suggest it is his own work.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1949
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I'm not explaining myself properly.
Think of it this way:
Imagine if A.N.Other came here and said:
"The diary is genuine and James Maybrick was Jack."
And you said:
"No it isn't and he wasn't."
And then I said to you:
"Please give us the evidence for your assertion."
You'd hit the roof - and rightly so.
The claim here for as long as I can remember has been variations of:
"Mike and/or Anne hoaxed the diary post 1987."
But without proof, no they didn't.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
No. You didn't say "He has to be considered innocent until proven guilty". You said "He didn't do it".
As usual, we have a parade of flim-flam to try to cover up the fact that you have no evidence to back up your assertion.
Chris Phillips
|
Uriah Hexam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
I am not certain my two cents are worth even that, given the exchange rate, but on the matter of James Maybrick's worth as a research subject, I would say this:
If nothing else, he is an interesting person, Diary and Ripper Candidacy aside. In that sense he is not unlike Montague Druitt, D'onstan Stephenson, and others. Their strange lives and deaths contribute greatly to our understanding of life in late Victorian England, whether or not they were Jack the Ripper. Perhaps, in so doing, they might contribute to our indirect understanding of the Ripper murders.
As for the Diary and all that...I plead mea poultry (cluck, cluck, cluck!)
P.S.
I was reading Dorothy L. Sayers' "Strong Poison" last night and was amused to a reference to the James Maybrick (in his capacity as victim, no doubt). I wonder what Miss Sayers knew about him as her reference to him was far from favourable... |
madrid ripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 11:25 pm: |
|
After reading a lot of books about Jack The Ripper, I think George Chapman was the ripper. WHY?. Just two things: First, the prostitutes were killed by someone who has knowledge about anatomy (Chapman studied for surgeon in Poland), this puts out MOntague John Druit, Kosminski, Deeming, joseph barnett, Maybrick or Sicket.
Second, HE was the only one who was in Whitechapel till 1891 (in http://www.met.police.uk/history/ripper.htm we can see the last ripper victim was killed in this year). This puts out Ostrog, Francis Tumblety or david Cohen.
No other suspect except Chapman was in Whitechapel during 1888-1891, and Chapman is the only one who know about anatomy. NO one, except George Chapman, had medicine knowledge and was there during all the ripper killing. And, as we all know, the ripper had anatomy knowledge and stopped killing in 1891, so...Who is the only one who gather this two conditions?. Other question: do you think there were many surgeons in a poor town like Whitechapel in 1888???. } |
S. Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 2:27 am: |
|
Hi Caroline,
I hope I haven't started something here.
I'll try and dig up that info about Maybrick that sais he was a suspect pre 1992.
I only make my claim about Barrett and formed my own oppinions on what I have read. The man does not know whether he is coming or going.He has made claims and then condradicts them.Then there is the question of tracing it's origans - we can't. How on Earth did he end up with it.From a friend who convieniently just passed away.
My uncle once gave me the advice , if it smells fishy - IT IS! Thats what I base my claims that it looks like he forged it on.
Thanks. |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Perhaps if Barrett had a better track record, did not lie so consistently, was a bit more sober and did not have such a money oriented obsession we might feel more sympathy for him. As it is he inspires little faith and no sympathy. |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 3:58 am: |
|
Maybrick was never proposed as a Ripper suspect before the 'dodgy diary' appeared. |
Uriah Hexam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
Dear Madrid Ripper,
You asked if there were many surgeons "in a poor town like Whitechapel." I would remind you that London Hospital, on the Whitechapel Road, had a very adequate supply in 1888 as, I am sure, it still does.
cheers,
Uriah Hexam
P.S.
Is there really a consensus that the Ripper had any great amount of anatomical or surgical knowledge? Druitt was the son of Wimbourne's leading surgeon and came from a long line of doctors, not that that proves anything. And I am fairly certain that other posters on these boards will agree that there is no consensus as which Whitechapel homicide was the last Jack the Ripper murder. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi S. Ryan,
How on Earth did he end up with it.
Indeed - that's the question. But the fact that Mike did end up with it in no way supports the claim that he actually created, or helped to create it.
Without any evidence of your suspect's capabilities, you may as well accuse a teenage drug pusher of manufacturing the stuff himself.
Hi AAD,
Perhaps if Barrett had a better track record, did not lie so consistently, was a bit more sober and did not have such a money oriented obsession we might feel more sympathy for him. As it is he inspires little faith and no sympathy.
Yes, Mike makes it all too easy for people to knock him. But sympathy, or lack of it, shouldn't enter the picture. Why would anyone want Mike to have written the diary, because of his known faults, if one of those faults is not forgery, and if the man couldn't forge a sick note?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
I see the game has started up again.
Well, those two weeks were nice.
Remember folks, it's all just a pointless exercise in performance art, like that unmade bed that they put in that museum or that lady who covers herself in chocolate.
Enjoy it for the absurdity, laugh at the uselessness of the show, but don't try it at home. We're professionals at this.
I did find it interesting that for ten days or so, when Caroline wasn't here, no one felt the need to discuss this silliness.
--John |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Hello All,
I have been researching a possible connection re the Maybrick saga which might, and I say might, be the a spark that ignited the whole sorry saga. I have submitted my findings in an article for possible inclusion in a forthcoming edition of the Whitechapel 1888 Society's Journal.
AWP.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1958
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
Looking forward to reading that.
Love,
Caz
XX |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
