|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
BACK TO BASICS PLEASE
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Articles by Melvin Harris:
BACK TO BASICS PLEASE
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 12:00 pm |        | Some recent remarks show that reminders are in order. Take the question of the "three books" used to create the Diary. There seems to be some confusion over this, and yet the answer is simple. This idea arises from statements made by me back in 1993 and incorporated in my "TRUE FACE" of 1994. The three books I alluded to were those dealing with THE RIPPER MURDERS, and that is made clear in my text. It could, though, have been just two books, if the lesser one had kept its dust jacket. Why? Because that jacket featured the Punch cartoon mentioned in the Diary.
This does not mean that the forgers confined themselves to just those two books. They may well have dipped into any of the many magazines that have recycled the story. If they did, they could have found the cartoon in some lesser source, such as the 'Murder Casebook' magazine of 1991. Even so, all the Diary facts and fallacies about the murders are taken from the two books identified in my Internet piece "THE MAYBRICK HOAX; A GUIDE THROUGH THE LABYRINTH". There I show that all but three items are taken from Underwood's "Jack the Ripper", the other items are drawn from Fido's book.
As for the Maybrick content, my examination shows that ALL the specific Diary material can be found easily in modern accounts. In fact all the material can be located in just one popular paperback, "THE POISONED LIFE OF MRS MAYBRICK" by Bernard Ryan, (Penguin paperback 1989). There you will find the family and business details and information about arsenic users. Yes, this one book proves that no expensive, time-consuming, research by the hoaxers was needed. All the Diary believers' claims were moonshine. The facts were there, to be had over the counter, for a mere £4.49 new, even less second-hand. Any extra, non-specific bits, were easily deduced from the realities of every-day living, both then and now. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 01:37 pm | | BACK TO BASICS PLEASE - PART II
Next, the question of the dating of the Diary ink. The only ion-migration tests universally accepted for forensic work are along the lines of those pioneered by Prof Metzger and Dr Heess in the 1930's. Even so such tests can only determine THE DIFFERENCE in age between two samples said to have been subject to the same handling and storage conditions from the moment of writing. The 'McNeil ion-migration test' has never been peer-tested and shown to be reliable. What's more, since McNeil uses reference samples, it should be noted that he did not possess any dated samples written on the same sort of thick, unglazed paper found in the Diary.
I have dealt with the age-bronzing of the Diary ink quite recently, but two things need to be added. I have now located Robert Smith's written admission that THE INK WAS NOT AGE-BRONZED IN DECEMBER 1994. Nick Warren had earlier written to him pointing to this absence of bronzing and stating that such bronzing should be visible if the Diary was created in 1888-9. On December 21st 1994 Smith replied thus:- "Your comment about 'browning' is not, as far as I know, conclusive. I believe iron was used in all commonly-used Victorian inks apart from Indian ink. Yet, I have a large number of Victorian documents, which have not 'bronzed' some of which were examined and compared with the Diary ink by Dr Eastaugh. Neither Dr Eastaugh in his report on aging of the Diary ink (18 June 1993) nor Leeds University, nor Robert A H Smith, Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Library, found a problem with the colour of the ink."
When you have digested that, next consider that both Smith and Mrs Harrison were present when Voller discovered small traces of bronzing on October 30th 1995, but at that meeting no mention was made of Smith's earlier examination and his letter. And no mention was made of the negative findings of ALL previous examiners. Then note that both Feldman and Harrison quote Mr Voller's words, and use them as evidence for the antiquity of the writing. But nowhere do they record the fact that such bronzing was absent during the period from March 9th 1992 to December 21st 1994. This is irresponsible and worse. It amounts to concealing the truth both from Voller and from the readers of their two books. However, if you look back on my original statement you will see that the authentic Diamine Manuscript Ink will bronze in as little as three years. And that, of course, makes Voller's thoughts on ageing quite worthless. He did insist though, that the Diary ink contained nigrosine, which contradicts the findings of the Leeds tests and confirms the early verdict of Dr David Baxendale (July 1st 1992). And here we have to remember that the original Diamine MS Ink used nigrosine as its sighting colour.
That the writing itself fails to match Maybrick's is unremarkable since the forgers never saw a sample. As I have earlier pointed out most people know that public records are kept of births, marriages and deaths, but the number of people who know that Wills are preserved is small. But even if they had realised this and ordered a copy of the Maybrick Will from Somerset House they would not have been sent a copy in Maybrick's hand, they would have received a Certified Copy written out by a clerk in 1889. Nothing would be said about the holograph Will, which was then kept in the Middlesex repository. Later on, this was brought to London, but only when specially asked for. It was then returned.
Interestingly enough none of the modern writers on the Maybrick case seemed to know about the original Will, or even the certified copy, since they all quote from the bogus version shown in MacDougall's 1891 book. And that bogus version proved a Godsend for the fakers since Smith, Harrison and Feldman were more than willing to use it to justify the pushing of the Diary commercially. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 03:32 pm | | BACK TO BASICS - PART III
Turning to the watch, we find another fair state of muddle. It is not true that it would cost a large sum to duplicate such a watch. Once a watch is obtained the actual cost of faking the scratches is minute. All that is needed is a narrow pointed piece of metal and small amounts of different grades of polishing grits.
The techniques of artificially ageing engravings on metal and of bare metal parts themselves, are simple ones, well-known to antique dealers, restorers and con-men. Sometimes they are employed to fake replacement parts or engravings, but they are also used quite legitimately to blend any repairs or additions in with the prized piece. Clients often ask for such blending.
That the sharp edges on the watch engravings or scratches could be artificially aged by polishing has been conceded by Dr Turgoose. He is wrong, however, in believing this to be a complex process. I can vouch for that, first-hand, since I have used such techniques often, when restoring musical instruments for museums, both private and public.
Thus the watch SCRATCHES cannot be dated and Turgoose grants this when he says "...it must be emphasized that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings." Despite this warning an attempt has been made to date the scratches by pointing to material that is not part of the casing of the watch. This attempt rests on the incredible claim that some tiny particles of brass embedded in the scratch marks were "blackened with age."
Now that claim assumes too much and provides too little. Brass is not an element but a large class of alloys, thus the name does not apply to a standardised product. You can have yellow brass, red brass, and a great variety of other brasses. In its simplest form it is an alloy of copper and zinc; but other formulas can include tin, or other metals. So what type of brass was found embedded? What proof is there that the particles were blackened WITH AGE? These questions are important and unanswered. And I doubt if they can be answered since the blackened particle considered by Dr Wild was as small as ONE MICRON, and a micron is one millionth part of a metre! So how long does it take for such an ultra-minute particle to tarnish? Neither Turgoose or Wild faced that problem. Yet a fair scientific approach calls for the tarnishing of reference samples of one micron particles of brass made from a formula close to that used in the watch sample.
Yet I do not blame those gentlemen for failing to carry out such tests. I am sure that they realised that there is no possible way in which they, or anyone else, could determine the conditions under which the watch particle had been kept. In fact a specimen of most of the brasses can be 'blackened' in minutes if brought into contact with the right atmosphere. But this whole issue has been muddled and taken off at a tangent because at no time have the possibilities been faced that the particle could have been deposited by either a tarnished brass scriber or by a grubby, contaminated cleaning cloth or buff.
So the idea that these brass particles, invisible to the naked eye, would have to be implanted by a faker in order to provide proof of antiquity is grotesque. The particles have no possible bearing on the age of the scratches. And nothing else invests these scratches with age. All the evidence points to a crude, modern, opportunistic fake that only appeared well AFTER the Maybrick/Ripper yarn was aired in the Liverpool press.
Indeed the very state of the inside cover of this watch illuminates the crudity of the faking. This is something not even mentioned by either Turgoose and Wild and it is certainly ignored by Feldman and Harrison. Yet even the photograph reproduced by Harrison cries out "Fake!". That photo clearly shows multiple scouring marks on the inside cover. But the inside cover is the one part that is PROTECTED from everyday wear. Any such wear is to be found on the OUTSIDE of the watch. But here we see a mass of scouring scratches made by an inexpert, undisciplined, hand, not by a skilled horologist. So why are they there, on this well-protected surface? Well, you already know the answer; to take the burr off the modern scratches. To invest the fake with, what the forger imagined, was a semblance of ageing. How wrong he was! (This question of artificial wear was touched on recently by Lars Tharp, editor of "How to Spot a Fake" when he warned "Be suspicious of wear occurring in an area not exposed to use")
So who did it? We are assured that the watch-owner, Albert Johnson, may drink too much and may be a gambler, but he is at bottom an upright man, not a deceiver. Despite paying a good deal for the watch (£225.0) he simply "...put it in a drawer and thought no more about it." Now if we accept Albert's testimony we then have to ask if someone else came to take a special interest in this neglected watch? Did that watch ever leave its resting place in the drawer? Albert is in no position to answer that. He never bothered to make a daily check. Indeed he ceased to take any more notice once the initial elation of buying it had passed. Even when the watch finally surfaced as "Maybrick's" the real, hot excitement about the find came from his brother Robert.
But what do we know about his brother, Robert? Well, it was Robert who pushed the watch into prominence and handled the publicity. All decisions in respect of that watch were made by him, with Albert's approval. Feldman confirms that. He also confirms that it was Robert who provided a false account of the problems in identifying all the scratches on the watch. As Feldman records, Robert claimed "We don't know what's scratched at 8 o'clock." and gave the reason that Dr Turgoose could not get the back off the watch. This led Feldman to state "Robert had lied. Turgoose might not know what was scratched at the position of 8 o'clock on the watch, but Robbie and Albert did. On the first day I had met the Johnsons they had brought with them a diagram...They had already seen what was scratched in that position and from their diagram Keith Skinner, Robert Smith and I, at the very least, also knew. They did not need Turgoose to tell them."
Now Feldman had employed private investigators to delve into the backgrounds of both Mike and Anne Barrett, but he says nothing about the background of the key figure Robert Johnson. This is odd indeed since he had at an early stage become aware of that lying account. Yet all we are ever told about Robert is that "..he worked on the fringes of the pop music industry." So why this dearth of information?
Let me now record that I have never had Robert investigated, but what little information I have been given is quite disquieting. I have two reports on Robert, one from a newspaperman, the other from one of Robert's relatives. Each on its own would ring alarm bells; together they raise serious doubts about his reliability. Perhaps someone who believes in the watch will now tell us a bit more about this man. Has his relevant background information been hushed up? In dealing with fakes and hoaxes such information can focus the thoughts. It might even provide the answers. |
Author: Bob_C
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 02:10 am | | Hi Melvin,
I consider the diary to be 'an impudent fake' (Sugden) like many others. I write here only because of the watch bit in your post above.
There is, as you say, so much evidence that the watch be not Maybrick's/Jack's, one questions if the thing should be discussed at all, but I also understand that this watch is a 'ladies model'.
Now, if that is the case, is it not nonsense to suppose that a wealthy Victorian businessman would carry a massive gold watch-chain (photo), attached to the end of which such a delicate model? The photographs of the watch certainly tend to support this, with engraving of a sort not usually to be found on a man's watch visable.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 04:27 am | | Thanks, Melvin for some sense on this topic. It is perhaps getting to the point that the diary supporters have only one arrow left in their quiver which is: "Don't be so negative about everything." However, I do understand that "The Final Victim" is now in paperback and is selling reasonably well so can a third edition of Feldman's book be far away?
Peter. |
Author: D. Radka
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 10:26 am | | Did anyone here see the '60 Minutes" broadcast on the Diary? I'd appreciate a review of it if possible, also a way to obtain a videotape. Thank you.
David |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 12:08 pm | | Hi, David:
I did indeed see the "60 Minutes" segment on the Maybrick Diary. I regret that I do not have a videotape of it. Possibly you could still get a copy from 60 Minutes. From the CBS website, the information for getting in touch with 60 Minutes is as follows. Address: 60 Minutes, 524 West 57th St., New York, NY 10019. Phone: (212) 975-3247. To order a transcript, call: (800) 777-TEXT. To order a videotape, call: (800) 848-3256.
The segment aired, as I recall, in 1993. Of course, this was after the "Diary" first surfaced and was possibly thought to be genuine. So the piece was, as I remember, a rather uncritical segment on the discovery of the diary and the Maybricks. The reporter for the piece was Ed Bradley. He interviewed Shirley Harrison at her home, a cottage in southern England, and also went through the Maybrick mansion, Battlecrease House, in Liverpool. I do not recall if Mike Barrett or his then wife Anne (now Anne Graham) appeared on camera. I tried to contact Bradley after the segment aired to tell him that I thought the Diary was a fake but never heard back from him or anyone else on the "60 Minutes" staff.
We will be having a discussion of the Maybrick Diary, as well as of Stephen Knight's Royal conspiracy theory, at our conference upcoming in Park Ridge, New Jersey, in April.
Chris George
Casebook Productions
jacktripper@fcmail.com
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/conference.htm |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 07:52 am | | David and Chris -
I have a copy of the "60 Minutes" broadcast. Mike Barrett did appear on camera towards the end, when he was asked by Ed Bradley what he would do if the Diary were proven to be fake; I don't quite recall his answer, but it was something along the lines of how he'd shake the hand of the person who fooled him and everybody else. Anne, as best I can remember, never appeared on the segment.
The whole thing was basically an uncritical recapitulation of all that Shirley Harrison has had to say about the Diary, and almost nothing was mentioned about provenance, internal contradictions and so on.
If you can't get a copy from "60 Minutes," David (and I doubt you will), send me an e-mail, and I'll copy mine for you.
CMD |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 10:52 am | | ANSWER NEEDED
We are all still waiting for one of the true believers in the 'Ripper watch' to come forward and tell us all about Robert Johnson's background. If you know the truth don't be shy, come forth and share it with us! |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 03:11 pm | | | Excellent remarks Mr.Harris. I would love to hear your thoughts on "Mary Kelly's crucifix." |
|
|
|
|
