|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through September 06, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through September 06, 2000
Author: Sara
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 12:40 pm |        | C.G.
Thank you! That puts so much in perspective, although I was sure that the amounts for a toss and a doss were very paltry, indeed. (and very dear for those in want)
You're a peach.
Sara |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 12:28 pm | | Hi, Leonard, Sara, and all:
The following will put you in the picture a bit more about British currency in 1888 and what it might buy you.
Bruce Paley in "Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth" (London: Headline, 1996), p. 12, reports that a Billingsgate fish porter, working diligently, could earn as much as £3 per week. This was more than most working men would get, however. Donald Rumbelow in "Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook" (New York: Berkley, 1990), p. 24, says that men doing such casual labor as hauling coal, carrying grain, or carting lumber, would earn 15 shillings to 20 shillings (i.e., £1) a week.
This sort of money would be more than most of the victims in the Whitechapel murders would likely see, living as they were a hand-to-mouth existence, the exception possibly being Mary Jane Kelly, who could rely on income from fish porter Joe Barnett.
Paley does make the point, however, that a pound (at 20 shillings (s) or 240 pence (d)) would go a considerable way:
"In the 1880s, a cheap room could be had for under 5s per week, while a bed in a doss house or common lodging house cost as little as 4d per night. A pound of beef or bacon cost about 8 1/2d. . . . A half dozen eggs sold for 5d or 6d, a pound of cheese for 7 1/2d, a pint of milk or a pound of sugar for 2d. . . . A nice pair of trousers went for 7s 6d, corduroys for 4s 5d. . . . Corsets sold for 5s per pair, men's stockings for 2s 5d. A pound of candles (still a necessity in most households as electical serviece were then being developed) cost 5 1/2d, a pound of cold-water cleaning soap was 3d, towels were 5d or less. Most newspapers cost a penny. . . ." (Paley, pp. 12-13).
Chris George |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 05:50 pm | | Hi,
This is my first time in here or for that matter using the net for anything useful.
The topic is the watch right?
OK
1/ Who can tell me why CE looks like CB in the photo? Is this to do with the Yard file which uses Beddows?
2/ Whos JV or WN & does the ecthing look like anything else?
3/ Anyone know what the TC/TL 9/3 1275 is?
We can all argue about providence forever without seemingly getting anywhere ... surely the proof is in the text of the diary or the writing in the watch.
John Dixon |
Author: michael pooley
Monday, 11 October 1999 - 02:56 pm | | If the diary is true then according to the evidence the earliest the watch could have been inscribed 'i am jack' would be march 1889
how did the drugs maybrick was taking affected him mentally. |
Author: Bill Poss
Wednesday, 20 October 1999 - 06:27 pm | | | I just finished reading Harrison's book. In the diary, the writer speaks of attempting to destroy it. Could this explain the missing first pages? As a criminal defense attorney, it just doesn't make sense to me that there are no dates for the various entries. How it was found is so suspicious. What is the latest forensic proof on the diary/watch? |
Author: Sara
Wednesday, 20 October 1999 - 07:45 pm | | Bill:
Please read and enjoy the archives on this subject - you'll find a veritable soap opera of background material surrounding this fabrication. As a CDA, you didn't miss a lick. Welcome to the boards.
All the best, Sara |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 03:29 pm | | Chris--Hello. Going clear back to your comments of May 1, 1999 (!), you make an interesting hypothesis about Billy Graham not seeing the Diary back in 1943, since his description of 'small print' differs from the present Diary. (Peter Birchwood makes a similar point, though seems to be ascribing it to a Billy's faulty memory rather than a --possibly psychological-- confusion that helps his daughter).
But here is an alternative theory. What about those missing pages at the front of the Diary? Could Billy Graham have been seeing those? He admits he didn't read the thing. Is it possible that the Diary was in the Graham family all those years, and the Maybrick writing was added later? (But by whom?) I suggest this because a)Mike Barrett's tale of buying the scrapbook at an auction apparently hasn't held up to scrutiny, and b) Billy Graham apparently has struck people who met him as a straight-foward and honest sort of fellow. I think, therefore, that one must give his statements a certain amount of weight; it may not mean, though, that the Diary is an old forgery. My gut feeling these days is that Mike Barrett was mainly in the dark, but 'figured some things out' on his own. Just a thought.
On a different note, no one has picked up on John Dixon's point above (July 21st) which strikes me as very interesting. Albert Johnson's diagram of the watch has the comment "Initial C.B. or E." Which is it? If the initials are C.B., mirroring the Yard files' Beddows, it would be exceedingly strange, no?
RJP |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 04 September 2000 - 11:54 am | | RJ
In pointing out originally that Billy Graham's description of what he saw about 1943 obviously did not apply to the diary, I assumed that if he was telling the truth (and please remember that even little white-haired church-going old ladies can lie if they see a need for it) he was describing a different book entirely. However you do make a valid point which I hadn't considered. Although the most likely scenario is that the first few pages were torn out because they contained photo's or postcards it is conceivable that they could have also been written on. If so, then you would have to ask the question: why were they ripped? (pardon the expression!)
As to giving his statements "a certain amount of weight," I wonder if we are safe in doing that considering that all we have are Feldman's excerpts from tapes which were transcribed by Billy's own daughter.
Regarding the watch I think that we should ignore Albert's statement and take a look at what is physically scratched there and what those scratches appear to say.
Peter |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 September 2000 - 01:56 pm | | Hi All,
I don't suppose any of us here are 'safe' to make assumptions about the people at the heart of the diary saga or their statements, particularly when all we know is what Feldy has chosen to include in his book.
But of course Feldy was not the only researcher to observe Billy and listen to him talking about the diary. Keith Skinner was present at one of the interviews, and I feel that his judgement should be given a great deal of weight. And it is surely not believed by anyone here that Keith would have taken Anne's transcripts as gospel without listening to and checking them against the tapes?
Hi Peter, it would indeed be a good idea to look at the watch before passing judgement on Albert's statement. BTW, have you ever asked to see it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: D L Lewis
Monday, 04 September 2000 - 05:38 pm | | Hi all,
One thing that confuses me, and feel free to shoot me down in flames. (I don't have my copy of Feldman at the moment.) Feldman claims that Martha Turner is the first victim? The watch shows five victims, starting with Mary Kelly? Is my memory correct? IF so, does this give the watch/diary hypothesis a severe kick, as the one cannot be associated with the other? |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 04 September 2000 - 06:01 pm | | Hi, DL:
Since we all cannot agree on which were the murders committed by the Whitechapel murderer (e.g., Tabram's in, Stride's out, Kelly's out (!!!)) etc., I don't necessarily see the fact that the Maybrick watch may not included this sixth name (Tabram) as any fatal blow to the case for James Maybrick having been the Ripper. It could also be mentioned that the initials of the woman Maybrick supposedly killed in Manchester are not included either.
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 04 September 2000 - 07:11 pm | | Hello DL, Caz, Peter, Chris--
D.L.: In my reading of the Diary, Tabram wasn't a victim; the victims were the 5 canonicals + the unknown in Manchester. According to Albert Johnson's diagram of the watch the intials are presumably those of Kelly (MK, NK,NR or MR?), Stride (ES), Eddowes (CB or E?), Chapman (AC), Mary "Polly" Nichols (JV, JN, JV, JW, WN, or MN?). The sixth intial "TL 9/3 12 75" I'm assuming is the alleged victim in Manchester or is this something else(?) I still haven't seen a good, definitive photograph of the watch and it's scratchings, but would love to see one.
Peter & Caz: You both make valid points. It's troublesome: 'personal impressions' vs. 'physcial evidence'. I confess that I tend to want to believe people's personal impressions. When Colin Wilson says that he found Albert Johnson to be sincere and believable, I want to give that a fair amount of weight. Ditto with the comments of Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison.
Ultimately, one can come to the conclusion that people are 'just plain wrong' in their impressions. But what about so-called physical evidence? What does one say when it turns out to be, frankly, unbelievable? A case in point: the examination of the scratches on the watch by Dr. Turgoose of UMIST and (independently) by Dr. Wild of Bristol University. Shirley Harrison writes (p246-247 of the Blake edition):
"...the eminent Dr Robert Wild tested it under his electron microscope using a technique of scanning auger microscopy. His findings were better than we dared to hope. Like Dr. Turgoose, Dr Wild photographed slivers of brass embedded within the scratch marks. They were blackened with age. *** (Wild)"Provided the watch has been in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least of several tens of years age. This would agree with the findings of Dr Turgoose (1993) and in my opinion it is unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings."
What does one make of this? I'm stuck exactly in the same position as Martin Fido (whom Harrison quotes) in finding the lab reports "impressive" and not really having an "easy explanation", but still unable to change my opinion that the diary and watch are modern hoaxes. But I'm a little uncomfortable with this. Are the scientists wrong? Would the brass particles be easier to fake than Dr. Wild assumes? Do scientists tend to tell their clients what they want to hear? OR am I and Fido fitting the physical evidence to match our theories rather than fitting our theories to match the physcial evidence?
One last question: Feldman makes the interesting comment that the watch "proves" the Diary to be either a modern fake or genuine, because the watch mirrors the information in the Diary (which was not yet published when Johnson came forward with the watch). Is this true, or is Feldman overstating the case?
I think if the waters were any more muddied they'd be quicksand. I'm in a pessimistic mood. These days my motto is the opposite of James Maybricks: Time Will Reveal Nothing.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: D L Lewis
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 04:30 am | | RJP,
Thanks again for your useful comments. Naturally, the watch may not be related to the diary, and vice-versa. Occam's razor, though, tends to support the one being the other. However, since the watch and diary have supposedly got the same provenance (or a similar one) consistency is a required characteristic for both of them. My original reading of the diary is that it was the five canonical murders, plus the unknown one in Manchester, though I don't think it is definite that one happened in Manchester. As far as I know, no evidence exists. Could JM have hidden the body? Perhaps, though the later M. O. does not support this, though it is not conclusive.
The supposed initials are problematic - till an independent scholar looks at them, they could mean anything, still be Maybrick's, and have no connection to Whitechapel! As you said, RJP, time reveals nothing (or at least as little as may be thought possible.)
These are my takes on it, as it stands, to fuel the discussion. I suppose I would like to believe Maybrick was the Ripper (not out of any disrespect to his family, but to finally clear the mystery.) However, I can't take the inconclusive evidence as anything more than a suggestion - though a reasonable one. I have my own theory on the Diary (I work as an historian, so it is free of Royals, poets, Cambridge dons, artists and Dr Barnardo), and may even publish it one day. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 06:44 am | | Hi RJ and All,
Certainly, according to Shirley Harrison, Albert Johnson came forward with the watch 'a few weeks before the first edition of [her] book was due at the printers..' Not an easy time for Shirley, trying to get the book out and having to start investigating all over again. If there was any collaboration between the Barretts and the Johnsons to get the watch markings to mirror the Diary content, their timing was frankly mystifying. It could have meant a delay, if not a long postponement, in getting the book out and starting the royalties rolling in. Perhaps it had taken all that time (from 1991, or at the latest early 1992, up until June 1993) to get the watch scratches made to everyone's satisfaction.
But if it was a case of the Johnsons jumping on the bandwagon, before meeting the Barretts or knowing what secrets the Diary contained, they surely took a big gamble with their choice of markings, whether or not Feldy is right about them mirroring the Diary info. What if the Diary author had written "Ha ha, they think I killed Long Liz, but the fools are wrong!" That would have been an expensive and time-consuming mistake - all that ageing of brass particles, and not a brass farthing as reward for all their pains.
It does make you wonder...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 07:07 am | | Hi Caz,
As with finding logic in timing: as you point out "If there was any collaboration between the Barretts and the Johnsons to get the watch markings to mirror the Diary content, their timing was frankly mystifying. It could have meant a delay, if not a long postponement, in getting the book out and starting the royalties rolling in."
If I read this with an open mind to first impression, this would support that it is independent from the diary, and not included to a hoax-plan. But then we must remember that it only would 'appear' to us like that. Actually a hoaxer, when sniffing smoke of possible accusations, would be very stupid to bring forward the watch to back him/her/them up long before the release of a book on the diary. This would certainly make the finger point to the forger.
But when the watch comes into the light of day at a most inconvenient money-time, the forger makes sure that people would see this as illogic to do for a forger in consequence of money-motive, and thus the finger is pointed away, and thus the watch gets more credibility.
I hope this twist makes sense to you, because I myself am getting a splitting headache over it.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 08:18 am | | Hi Jill,
Yes, I do see what you mean - I had to read your post a couple of times, but it hasn't got me reaching for the aspirins quite yet. J
But do you think our forgers were clever enough to think of such a bluff? To cause inconvenience to Shirley, the author of their future fortunes, to make it look unlikely they were all in it together?
Again, we'd have to find evidence that the Johnsons and the Barretts (or at least citizen Kane and the late Tony D) knew each other and were plotting it all way back before Mike finally decided in March 1992 to profit from the diary - which had presumably been in his possession for some ten months, even though the reason he gave in June 1994 for forging it was being behind with his monthly mortgage payments!
Oh God, pass me those aspirins!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 09:32 am | | | Sorry, Caz, just had to gulp my last one :-) |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 05:07 pm | | Hi, all,
First time I've been able to access the boards for about a month...kept getting error messages...oh,well...back to catching up again..
Steve S. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 10:20 am | | In this convuluted world of diaries and watches where original artifacts are hard to see (yes I did ask to look at the watch some time ago and am still waiting) and where, for the most part we have to rely on peoples' words without too much other evidence: YES, it is completely fair and reasonable to treat statements which have no accompanying evidence with great care. Has anyone out there got a readable photo of the watch or are we just relying on the words of Albert and Robbie Johnson and Paul Feldman?
RJ: Colin Wilson is a nice fellow even if he did omit to answer my congratulatory email on his encounter with the aliens at the Great Pyramid last New Year. I would suggest that you judge him by his books looking at the sort of stuff that he has turned out recently. And while you are doing that, look at some of the people that he mentions in those books and his reasons for accepting their (sometimes) very unlikely stories.
About those scratch marks, it might be valuable to read Melvin Harris' pieces on those marks if they are still available on this site. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 04:45 am | | Peter: Just a note to say that I haven't completely lost my sense of proportion! I'm already fairly familiar with the eccentric world of Colin Wilson (one of my favorite ideas of his comes from his book Mysteries where he wonders, along with a fellow named Lethbridge, whether or not cat's whiskers might be divining rods), but dang it, I still like him. It just strikes me that Albert Johnson is rather an unlikely forger, and might be an innocent bistander. I'm trying to avoid the 'nest of forgers' pitfall.
The watch has been called 'the Liz Stride' of the Maybrick affair. The big question here, it seems to me, is whether or not the watch and the diary make for a 'double event' or whether they are independent creations.
Feldman implies that Johnson was almost grossly ignorant about Jack the Ripper and James Maybrick when he approached Robert Smith with the watch. Indeed, he uses this as an argument for the watch (and the Diary) being authentic, because it shows the watch mirrors the Diary's content in an unexplainable way before it was published. Feldman later (characteristically) contradicts his claims of Johnson's ignorance by suggesting that Johnson was in fact a blood descendant of Maybrick, two watches exist, the 'Maybrick' watch had been in the family for years, and that Johnson didn't want the world to find out the awful truth(!) (Does this chain of events sound somehow familiar?)
Shirley Harrison adds a little more information. She tells how Johnson went to the college to research Maybrick and Jack the Ripper after a friend pointed out that the watch might be connected to the story that ran in Liverpool Daily Post(p 243). This sounds a little like Mike Barrett. Yes, I admit it. It is very suspicious that Mr. Johnson bought the watch only a short time before the Maybrick revelations. It is even more suspicious that he brought the watch to work to show his co-workers (who made the discovery of the Maybrick scratches) right after the story ran in the Daily Post. It is also suspicious that the jeweler doesn't remember the scratches, and signed a sworn statement to that fact.
It would be interesting to know how much about the Diary was revealed in the Post article (I haven't seen it).
Meanwhile, could the darkened brass particles in the scratches be in the result of scratching the surface with an old piece of brass? (No, I didn't say an old piece of brass from an Liverpool scrap metal dealer). I can't believe an electron microscope would be necessary (!) I somehow missed Harris's discussion of the watch, but will look for it when the Casebook is back up and running.
Caz: Sure looks like a "C.B." in the photo of the watch. As a reformed vandal, I know it's difficult to scratch curves on metal. "C.E." would have been much easier. An odd thing.
RJP
(PS. My guess is Liz Stride wasn't a Ripper victim)
Tempus Nihil Revelat |
|
|
|
|
