|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 October 10, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through October 10, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 01:48 pm |        | Do we take it that Melvin has seen the watch then?
I can't remember whether he, Shirley or Feldy have said as much.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Steve Powell
Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 08:20 am | | Howdy rippernauts,
just a short one to say I'm still here and thinking of you and the case as usual.
Has anyone heard from any other australian contact or info as yet?
I seem to be getting the mushroom treatment.
love to all.
steve powell |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 08:40 am | | Hi Steve,
The ultimate Australian contact persons here, are Leanne and Jules who have started up an Australian Cloak & Dagger and the fresh magazine Ripperoo.
Greetings, Jill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 06:36 am | | Hi Steve,
No mushroom treatment intended – I thought we’d lost you way before the problems with the Casebook. Weren’t you going to work with Leanne and Jules at trying to contact the old mates who could confirm your story? I assumed when there was no feedback that you’d drawn a blank and given up. Why not email Leanne again and discuss what more can be done? It could be she has been waiting for you to get back in touch with more info.
Hi RJ,
As usual you make some very good points.
Firstly, though, we might just be safe to assume that Feldy’s meanderings about Albert knowing ‘the awful truth’ would not reflect Albert’s own thoughts or words on the subject!
It’s not entirely clear to me from Albert’s workmate John White’s account (given to Shirley and Keith Skinner - see p241 of the updated paperback), which of the group of workmates first pointed out the scratches in the watch or who suggested a closer examination. “We could see the scratches but we couldn’t make them out” (my italics), might suggest that Albert had drawn attention to them, which could indeed look suspicious. It appears that Albert was encouraged to take the watch to the Science and Tech block for a closer look, returning to tell John what he’d found. Then it was John who came out with, “it’s Jack the Ripper’s”, explaining that he’d been ‘reading his diary’ (?) in the Echo. Albert phoned the Echo, but John had got the wrong paper and totally the wrong idea about the Maybrick murder story. So, did Albert make the trip to the lab and the phone call to the Echo just to add conviction to his ‘innocent bystander’ role? And did John White conveniently and coincidentally play right into Albert’s hands by making the Maybrick/JtR connection for him?
If this account is truthful and reasonably accurate, and especially if it wasn’t Albert who pointed out the faint scratch marks in the first place, it doesn’t look to me so much like a deliberate plan to lead his workmates down a certain path, more like they were all travelling the same path at the same time, or even possibly ahead of Albert! Certainly he couldn’t have wished for better co-operation if he planned to get one over on them.
Now, I suppose John White could have got the details muddled. And for the more suspicious amongst us, there is the possibility that Albert got him to twist the order of events and who said what, adding yet another name to those already suspected of dishonesty to help the forgers for not much apparent reward. (Methinks that nest of forgers is in danger of serious overcrowding J) But presumably the details of John’s account should have been easy to confirm or deny by the others present that day. In which case, short of them all being wilfully dishonest, the suspicions against Albert seem a bit on the weak side to me. Added to that, the forensic testing of the watch cost Albert several hundred pounds of his own money (and according to Shirley he was living on a very modest income), and he even turned down an offer from America of $40,000 for it. None of it makes much sense if Albert was involved in creating the fake independently to cash in on the diary. I can cope with the brain behind one of the forgeries having – quite reasonably, according to Melvin Harris - no financial motive, but two independent operators, neither apparently turned on by the thought of hard cash? That’s going too far, and my guess is that Peter Birchwood would not disagree.
Regarding the actual scratch marks, looking at the photo, I’d say that the capital letters used for the initials (C B – or E, and A C ) have been scratched in a curvy old-fashioned style which is not inconsistent with the same capital letters in the diary. And although I agree that straight lines would be easier to scratch, leading you to wonder if C B was the intention, a curvy E corresponds far better with the diary Es (as in ‘England’), so maybe there was method in the madness. But when the Maybrick M in the watch is compared with any of the diary Ms, the similarity is more remarkable - both are formed of straight lines. If we are dealing with an opportunist who had not actually seen the diary when he was making those marks, I’d say his guesswork was as much lucky as educated. I don’t know if any part of the diary was shown by the media prior to publication, but I think it’s highly unlikely that a sample large enough to include all the capital letters used in the watch would have been shown publicly at this time.
If the watch was part of the diary forgers’ original plans – as you say, a ‘double event’ – it would have made sense for the diary penman to be the one to scratch the writing into the watch. But it could have been an afterthought on the part of one or more surviving conspirators, at a time when the penman had either died, become incapable, unwilling or uncontactable. So it would be useful to have some informed opinions on whether the markings could have been made by the same hand, or at least indicate an attempt to imitate the diary lettering.
I too can’t help liking Colin Wilson from what I’ve read and seen of him. Peter may think Colin is the one out of step but, in judging Albert Johnson honest, he is merely joining the queue – I’ve yet to hear a bad word about Albert from someone who has actually met the man.
Have a great weekend all and apologies for the lengthy post.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 07:17 am | | G'day Steve,
Sorry if you think we 'mushroomed' you!!! Actually I was awaiting more info from someone.
It's a no-hope job trying to make contact and/or find information about anyone who works in the nursing proffession in this country, because of 'Protection Of Privacy' laws! I did think we might be able to phone the hospital concerned, but I was told that it doesn't exist anymore!
I'm traveling to Canberra this Monday, to talk 'Ripperoo' with Jules and I'll bring up this subject and we'll discuss what we can do!
LEANNE! |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 12:43 pm | | | One point: do we have any evidence apart from Albert Johnsons' word that he actually received an offer of around $40,000 for the watch? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 01:56 pm | | Sorry Peter.
Instead of 'and he even turned down an offer from America of $40,000 for it', I should have written, 'according to Shirley, he apparently turned down an offer....'
My, we are picky today, aren't we? I spent a long time on that damned post. At least we seem to agree on Barnett. J
I hope someone can answer your question. Meanwhile, perhaps you could tell us if evidence of the offer would make any difference to your opinions?
And how about coaxing Melvin Harris back out to play soon? He must have unpacked all his goods and chattels in his new home by now. Things were just getting interesting when he chose to move house.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 04:03 pm | | Caz, Peter: This, according to Melvin Harris:
"I find the book a little coy about the funding of the watch tests. One gets the impression that Albert was prepared to fund everything on his own. But a statement from Robert Smith, dated 3/11/1993, shows that Albert had been paid one thousand pounds, and a further statement from the Crew agency dated 20 December shows a further payment of two thousand pounds. I can't say how many other payments were made, if any, but at least that sets the record straight."
--The Maybrick Hoax: a Guide throught the Labyrinth
According to Harris, the scratches in the watch were dated by the existance of only two microscopic brass particles, which might have been left by a darkened awl used for the scratching. (The watch is apparently a lady's watch, but then didn't Johnson buy it for his granddaughter?)
According to Feldman (p 247) it was a Texas businessman that offered to buy the watch in 1993. (My guess is George W. Bush who was making some interesting business moves in the early 1990's). If this is the case, it might have been reported in the Dallas papers. A cynic might say: If I claim to own Neill Cream's suspenders and show them off to a reporter from the Sydney Boomarang, I am just being a practical joker; if I go ahead and sell them to Rupert M. for $50,000, I am committing fraud. By not selling them I might be demonstrating sincerity, or I might be demonstrating cold feet. (This is not to slur what might be the good name of Albert Johnson, but to merely point out that from the sketchy information available in Feldman & in Harrison, it is impossible to reach any level of certainty as to people's motives).
Sigh.
Have a nice week-end, everyone.
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 05:53 am | | Yeah, RJ, I guess we could go round in circles on this one for headless donkeys’ years. 
The independent forensic reports on the watch sounded reasonably convincing to me – particularly the bit about the considerable expertise and up-to-date scientific knowledge needed in order to make the recent scratches fool the experts and appear decades old. But naturally all this can be undermined and swept away by a non-scientist with a good academic argument. It makes me wonder about the value of any forensic testing. Had the tests indicated the scratches were recent, no doubt they would have been hailed by Melvin as scientifically accurate and proof of chicanery (and Albert would have dug himself an even bigger hole than the one others would have him in). As it is, his explanation is that the scientific tests failed to give the right results, and must presumably be considered a worse than useless method of testing anything for age.
Sigh
Love,
Caz
PS To anyone still remotely interested: Sssshh - I've just had an email from Weedon's great grand nephew! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 12:16 pm | | Hi again RJ,
I've tried to sort out the order of events after Albert came forward with his 'find'.
I may have this wrong, but it appears that Albert forked out 'several hundred pounds' for the first report by Dr Turgoose in the summer of '93. The results were promising enough to prompt the Crew agency to pay Albert at least £3,000 by the end of that year, more than covering his costs. (If the report had even hinted at recently made scratch marks, Albert and his timepiece would have been swept as far under the carpet as possible to distance the whole embarrassing episode from the diary.)
Then in January '94, according to Shirley, Albert agreed to the second test by Dr Wild, this time at Shirley's expense.
If Albert had already committed fraud to the tune of at least £3,000, he was pushing his luck by allowing the second test, unless he was supremely confident about the forger's workmanship, be it his own or A.N. Other's.
But if the offer of $40,000 can be substantiated, and cold feet were indeed the reason for rejecting it, then I guess it's a gauge of Albert's confidence, or perhaps conscience. Cold feet at $40,000 worth of fraud, but happy to dip his toes in for £3,000 worth, followed by an early bath had the second test poured cold water on the first 'decades old' result.
Is this going to be yet another Wild Turgoose chase? 
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 06:27 am | | Caz,
As the boys down at the Central News Agency might have said, that joke about the Wild Turgoose chase 'gave me real fits'. But Dr. Wild and Dr. Turgoose aside, I'm also interested in the findings of Stanley Dangar mentioned by Harrison (p 248-249). Did Mr. Dangar (former member of the British Horological Society) once post on this site? If Shirley Harrison pops in again maybe she could let us know if there is any update on Dangar's 'new information' that has led him to believe the watch and the diary are genuine.
Since my recent posts, I've studied the detailed discussion of the watch by Melvin Harris that I somehow managed to overlook. (Thanks to Peter Birchwood). Anyone interested can find these under "Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper, General Discussion: Articles by Melvin Harris: 'Back to Basics Please' Part III (Nov 11, 1999)". As usual, the arguments are quite compelling.
In particular, Harris touches on one point that bothered me a good deal when I saw the picture of the watch in Shirley Harrison's book: the circular pattern of minute scratches over the engravings. It looks almost as if someone went over the thing with a Brillo pad or a fine piece of steel-wool! But, as Harris points out, this is on the inside of the back cover of the watch, a place that would not normally receive wear. This reminded me a little of Dr. Turgoose's statement that "they(the engravings) could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing of artifical wearing stages" (Harrison is honest enough to include this in her quote of Turgoose on p.245-246). While awaiting the new findings of Stanley Dangar, I guess I have to admit that though I've tried to give Feldman's claims a fair shake I ultimately find myself (again) falling back into the Harris and Birchwood way of thinking.
I have wondered recently whether or not it might be more humane if the final denouement of the Maybrick mystery was resolved in private among those who have been personally involved since the beginning. This sincerely bothers me. I don't mean to be enigmatic, but don't you think almost all of the 'evidence' points in a certain direction? Fellows like me in the upper balcony can live without hearing 'the truth' anytime soon, but, for many of those who have posted here, personal and professional relationships might be at stake. Do you get my point? (Just a thought)
RJP |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 12:49 pm | | Caroline Anne: Not "Picky." It seems plain to me that Albert Johnson needs to be checked out just as much as anyone else embroiled in this thing. We already know by the courtesy of Mrs. Harrison that his brother Robbie had a dodgy past. If Albert's story about the Texan is true then he has good reason to be believed on other matters; if it's false then it follows that one should believe the rest of his story at ones peril. This I think answers your question. Regarding the point about the $40,000 offer for the watch, Feldman says: "In the spring of 1995 I was to learn of an offer made by a businessman from Texas, USA to purchase the watch. The ammount was $40,000. Albert refused it." Mrs. Harrison repeats this story. Did they both learn this from the same source and was that source Albert or Robbie Johnson? (Robbie died in August that year.)
I would like to ask Mrs. Harrison or Mr. Feldman whether they saw any independent evidence such as a letter from this Texas businessman confirming this offer? If the story however rests entirely upon the word of one of the Johnson's, then I would suggest that it is more likely to have been a case of the goldmine being salted than anything else.
Thanks, RJ for finding Melvin's words on the subject and I think that if those statements are accurate then even if Albert did pay for the watch examination out of his own pocket, he certainly got reimbursed later. As there has been no denial of Melvins words I suspect that the statements are quoted correctly.Regarding the US moneyman, I wonder if its the same Texas millionaire who is rumoured to have the real Mona Lisa in his basement or is always quoted as being the man behind the big art thefts? About the possibility of this being fraud, I would suggest that it's a very grey area. I think Caveat Emptor would be the watchword (!) here. I'd also suggest that you email me privately.
Peter |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 10:30 am | | Hello All.
Personally, I think I'll forget about the watch for the time being. Proving it a fake would do very little to discredit the diary, anyway; one could plausibly argue that it is an independent 'opportunistic' hoax, which, of course, would have little bearing on the diary's authenticity, pro or con. It's only real interest to me is the slight chance that...if proven to be connected to the diary...it might indicate an older forgery. Any connection has yet to be proven, I think.
Steve, if you're still around, hello. I don't know how much of the debate you were able to catch, but I'm wondering if you have any response to those who were a little skeptical about the extremely detailed account you gave of the discussion about the diary in 1968/69, and, also, if you have any comment about Anne Graham not remembering the conversation? I hope you're still around.
Peter--I do have a small comment I'd like to throw your way. Should I use the celticresearch address?
Finally, before the big crash, I might have been a little too optimistic in suggesting Diemshutz had a donkey and not a horse. The Star does quote him as calling his work animal a donkey; on the other hand, the Daily Chronicle has him calling it a pony. Presuming Diemshutz knew his own animal(!), I can only suspect that the Victorian journalists sat around in the pubs on Fleet Street chugging pints of Tetley's fabricating their interviews. Uggh. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 12:31 pm | | RJ:
the celticresearch address is fine.
Peter |
Author: shirley harrison
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 05:49 am | | Hello all. I have returned from an extended stay in France and there are a number of posts on the board to which Id like to respond in an effort to try and keep the records as straight as possible in this convoluted saga. But will you bear with me whiler I unpack my bags?
I will simply reassure you though that Two Gun Tex does exists - in fact he has been writing to me for years and this summer I helped organise a tour of Britain for him and his wife and a friend. So we met and as a result I am now an Honorary Texas Ranger with a badge and a cerrtificate but sadly no boots` or hat. He has been trying to buy the watch for a long time but Albert wouldn't budge - I suspect the reason may be {and Albert has NOT told me this) is that he is absolutely convinced it is genuine and is hoping that one day I will prove it so…then of course it would be worth even more than the considerable sum his American friend has offered. If Albert were aware of a forgery he would have taken the` money and run! I am considering the feasability of arranging a public viewing of the watch and diary next year some time and maybe asking The Cloak and Dagger to host an evening with Albert as guest, though he is very shy. But it is practicalities and not secrecy which is paramount here. The watch IS a mystery to all of us - including Albert. |
Author: shirley harrison
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 08:38 am | | I travel light. Unpacked and ready to go. Oddly as I was re-reading all your messages I had a phone call from Albert to see if I had any news about the film (which I haven't). He said he would be happy to come down to London next year so I will see what can be arranged. His response was characteristic "oh well, when I'm dead at least my grandaughter will have some fun reading about all the things her grandad got himself caught up with!"
Now to try and answer some points in order. And incidentally, it is so good to read some reasoned and genuine debate. It IS hard for all those people who have never met the principals involved or were not at the hundreds of meetings that have taken place. It is so easy to misinterprete events that were horrendously complex for us all - not least my agent, Doreen Montgomery, whose conscientous professionalism led her to spend enormous amounts of unpaid time in a legal nightmare of contracts and litigation.
To John Dixon. July 25th 1999 (Im horribly behind)
Have you read the updated paperback? The Superintendent of the Watch and clock Dept at the British Museum was puzzled by these initials and numbers but thought they had been produced by the same implement that scratched the other initials. Then (typically) he said they COULD be a repair mark.
To Bill Poss October 20th 1999
I am surprised that you are surprised about the dates. This is NOT a diary - I wish the original publishers had used a different word. It is a "confessional" much like many others penned by murderers, where we are dealing with thoughts rather than events.
To RJP.
Can you suggest an "independent scholar" who would be a worthwhile addition to our team of "experts". I could certainly try approaching such a person.
You say it is suspicious that Albert bought the watch a short time before the press revelations and that he took the watch to work. But I explain in the updated paperback that Albert took the watch to work because they were all talking about The Antiques Roadshow and whether Victorians used carat gold. It was nothing to do with the newspaper. It was Albert's pal John (who is another extremely respectable chap) noticed all the scratch m arks - Albert hadnt. John told us that they had got the newspaper story wrong anyway. The jeweler didn't recall the scratches because, according to the shop who were getting it repaired he would not have needed to look at the back - he was simply repairing the works.
You ask about Mr Dangar. I must be cautious. Ask Peter Birchwood or Alan Gray or anyone, who, like myself, was innocently summoned to Chateau Dangar in Spain. Off the net!
Brillo pads? Yes…..the owner of the shop wher4e the watch was bought admitted that he tried to buff out the scratches with jewelers rouge before selling it.
There is no clear photograph of the scratches precisely because they are so difficult to see without a microscope. Maybe there are other techniques which would reproduce better but I was spending so much money on the research that I didn't pursue this.
The facts about payments to Albert.
Albert paid about 300 for the first test of the watch.
He had no idea at this time if he would be paid anything at all by us in London.
On November 3 1993 I paid him 1,000 pounds (not Doreen - she is merely the agent who looks after my income and expenses) for the use of the Manchester report, which was his property, and as permission fees for the use of the photographs.
On November 7th 1994, after publication of the paperback, I paid Bristol University 587 pound 50p for their report and on November 25th 1993 a further 2,000 pounds to Albert for permission fees.
I don't think it is for me to discuss in an open forum the career of Albert's brother beyond saying what Albert has himself said that Robbie sailed close to the wind. Robbie may well have been excited by the crock of gold but I can find no way that Robbie could have actually planted it. His interests lay elsewhere.
I have asked Albert if he would contribute to the message boards - but he has no computer or fax or means of doing so. However, if you direct questions to him I will pass them on and he will respond. A bit cumbersome but it's the best I can do.
That's probably enough for the moment! As for aspirins - there's a world shortage. We have a lot to answer for. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 08:50 am | | Hi Shirley,
And there was I, wondering whether to suggest to Peter that he email me privately about Two Gun Tex... but then I thought it wouldn't be cricket. I'm jolly glad you arrived when you did.
I composed the following post before I saw yours, but I think I'll still post it anyway.
Hi RJ,
In your post of Sunday Sept 10, you wrote:
‘I have wondered recently whether or not it might be more humane if the final denouement of the Maybrick mystery was resolved in private among those who have been personally involved since the beginning.’
I’ve given a lot of thought to those words because, while it’s clear you meant them sincerely, I’m still not sure I
follow your drift. Are you of the opinion that the final denouement may not be long away, and that when it comes it will involve Melvin Harris naming the forgers, complete with accompanying documentary evidence? And is your ‘more humane’ message directed at those involved on all ‘sides’ of the diary investigation?
The trouble is, all we seem to have done is come full circle and arrived back at the point when Melvin first promised he would soon be identifying the forgers. In the event it didn’t happen because, according to Melvin, his professional code prevented him from publicly naming names. Either the same objections still apply, or for some reason he is no longer so confident about his evidence against the forgers. I can’t see how else his continued silence can be explained or justified. So I just get the nagging feeling that you will still be in your upper balcony waiting for ‘the truth’ when the Maybrick movie now on the horizon has triggered God knows how many more Diary book sales worldwide and is enjoying its umpteenth tv repeat. Just call me Mrs Cynical.
But what I still don’t get is why Melvin’s professional code needed to be compromised in the first place. It’s one thing if he genuinely didn’t feel at liberty to identify the forgers publicly. But surely he didn’t have to. He could have done precisely what you now seem to be advocating (if I read your message right), and shown Shirley - or indeed anyone else closely involved in the research - his proof against those involved, giving the diary team no choice but to abandon the project there and then. No need for the public to be given any names, just a simple statement to the effect that it was no longer believed the Diary was genuine. Simple, ethical, and humane for everyone concerned. The money-making machine which so irks everyone would have slowed and stopped, and Maybrick’s JtR suspect status would have slithered down the greasy popularity pole and died a natural death, unlike poor old arsenic-eater James back in 1889.
No doubt there are a million obvious objections to this solution - it does sound far too simple. All we do know is that, for whatever powerful and frustrating reasons, it was Melvin who had to abandon his own plans to expose the culprits, leaving the diary ‘industry’ free to indulge in whatever ‘time-wasting stupidities’ its little heart desired.
Meanwhile Melvin maintained his argument for a modern hoax, relying on rigorous research and his tireless public tirades on the net - so successfully that one can perhaps be forgiven for overlooking his early promise to nip things in the bud. But, despite the undoubted support Melvin has had for all his extraordinary efforts, and whether any of us here like it or not, Maybrick remains one of the most popular ripper suspects of recent years, if not of all time.
As we have seen, Melvin’s lips were sealed privately as well as publicly six or seven years ago, when he had his best chance of killing the diary/watch saga stone dead. For all we know, his reasons for keeping mum back in 1994 may still be valid and honourable today. And when the time is right for him to reveal all, it may finally be appreciated why he couldn’t do so sooner. But while we are patiently twiddling our thumbs in the upper balcony, Melvin can’t blame us for wondering if his original evidence against the forgers would still stand close scrutiny. What if he has recently come to realise that it just isn’t damning enough to bring about the final denoument? He is unlikely to admit it, privately any more than publicly. And I hate to say it (oh all right, I don’t really), but if his hard evidence, if it ever existed, actually grew limp and dropped off a long time ago, then Hell is quite likely to freeze over before anything will be resolved from that direction.
Getting back to the watch, I asked Keith Skinner the other day for his views (and I know he won’t mind me referring to them here), and he doesn’t agree with you that ‘one could plausibly argue that it is an independent ‘opportunistic’ hoax.’ You are right that a connection to the diary has yet to be proved. Certainly no one has yet produced any evidence that citizen Kane or Devereux or the Grahams or Barretts had ever heard of the Johnsons prior to Albert coming forward with the watch in mid 1993. But Keith was able to assure me that there had been nothing whatsoever in the media, which could have helped an opportunistic forger to decide what details to engrave, or how best to form the letters, in order to ensure his work was consistent with the as yet unpublished diary. He really would have been scratching around in the dark.
And having read through everything again, I really have to agree with Keith’s conclusion – the diary and watch have to have come from the same stable.
Which talk of stables brings me nicely round to your tale (or tail?) of Diemshutz’s donkey.
Perhaps, if the Daily Chronicle quote came after the one in the Star, old Louis was beginning to enjoy the attention and fancied promoting his ass to pony status. On the other hand, he may have been using a colloquialism, as in “Which donkey shall I have a flutter on?” meaning “Which horse shall I back in the 2.30?” Failing that, we are back to the journos and their Tetley-induced interpretations. Though if Diemshutz’s four-legged friend really was a donkey, more famous for their stubbornness than their speed, that trip back from market at Westow Hill, SE London (where incidentally I did jury service in 1985 – Westow Hill, not the market) must have been pretty tedious. No wonder he stopped en route for a pint at The Grove Tavern (been there several times too, although sadly it’s part of a large pub restaurant chain nowadays). Wonder if a donkey can pass for a horse in the dark? Only if he keeps quiet I guess.
Have a great weekend all. I'm now looking forward to Shirley unpacking those bags and correcting any horrid errors in this post.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 12:55 pm | | Thank you Shirley on telling us about the "Texan Millionaire," and I'm happy to hear that as far as you're concerned he lives and breathes, although one must assume that he has more money than sense; something which is, I believe, common in Texan Millionaires!
Peter |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 01:30 pm | | Oooh, I can think of far worse things to be than a millionaire with no sense - send him to me if you like, Shirley, but just wait until I put the finishing touches to the initials I'm embroidering on this Victorian hankie.... 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 05:38 am | | Hi Peter,
Now look what you've gone and done. My daughter has a question for you:
How can a American millionaire have no cents?
(Bear with her, she'll be a teenager soon!)
Love,
Caz and Little Caz |
Author: Barry Street
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 10:00 am | | My oh my, how nonsense begets nonsense.
These boards are a small introspective world peopled by but a handful of regular contributors. Some of these contributors are very good researchers and contribute much sensible discussion. Others merely name-drop and contribute nothing of any value, but use thousands of words in doing so. They are also very quick to give their opinion on subjects of which they have a rather less than full knowledge. Their allegiances, from the tone of their posts, are obvious.
Not only is the naff diary dead in the water, the bogus watch is positively petrified. For goodness sake, it's not even a man's watch, it's a lady's! Of course, by dead we mean dead as an honest contribution to the genre, it certainly is not dead in a money-making sense which is why it is pushed for all it's worth here. But such is the way of life.
Everyone knows that there is not one honest and genuine expert on this subject who considers the duff diary genuine. So whilst all these huge sums of money are bandied about and there is talk of a movie we can clearly see the reason for all the noise still being made by the diary proponents. But, other than here, the whole fiasco remains dismissed for the nonsense that it really is, with the usual contributors pushing the 'debate' for all it's worth. And it's a nonsense to suggest that the forgers have to be named. History can throw up many examples of similar hoaxes that, although clearly recognised as such, we do not know, for sure, the identity of the perpetrators. But with the monetary figures involved now being openly admitted (it was not so long ago that they were being denied) we all now know the motives involved.
So those involved with the diary project, little money-spinner that it is, continue to pontificate, obfuscate and talk drivel about their little pet project. Not that there is anything wrong with making money, it's just the dishonesty of the whole diary debacle that sticks in the craw.
Joe public for his part will remain happy to swallow the tall stories and love the sensational idea that such a killer as the Ripper would put pen to paper and admit his motives. And while Joe public is still spending his hard earned cash on new paperbacks on the same old sorry story, the diary factory will continue to paper over the rather obvious cracks and confuse with smokescreens, red-herrings, and totally tangential nonsense, such as the watch.
On reading some of the posts here, admittedly some written by 'Joe Publics,' we are left wondering what some people have in their lives to amuse themselves other than hundreds of man (and woman) hours devoted to ruminating on this bilious drivel.
The watch may be a minor mystery (as to the actual 'author' of the scratches) but the real mystery here is how anyone can continue to buy this rubbish. One poster here has commented on having 'come full circle and arrived back...' under the misguided idea that we need to prove who the forgers are to prove the forgery. Nonsense, the content has already proved the forgery. The only danger in going full circle is that you will disappear up your own rear end.
Now, just the other day I bought an antique tobacco tin and scratched inside the lid was... |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 01:56 pm | | Caroline Anne:
It's nice to know that young Carly takes after her mother. There's an Interesting Fact that she can take over to school on Monday.
About 100 years ago there lived a Texas Millionaire named Rice. (He was murdered in New York City, but that's another story.) He had a sister who had never married but who, through one thing and another had accumulated even more millions than he had. It so happened that her first name was Ava and so, when you hear the phrase: "Wealth beyond the dreams of Ava Rice," that's who they're talking about.
Peter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 02:19 pm | | Hi Peter,
Nice one! Carly is here taking note.
Hi Barry,
Welcome to the Ava Rice board.
I'm very pleased to hear that you disapprove of giving opinions based on 'rather less than full knowledge.'
I actually took Peter Birchwood's advice to contact Keith Skinner, because I wanted my own opinions to be based on more than just what Shirley, Feldy and Melvin had written. Keith was closely involved from the beginning and possessed a better knowledge of the 'whole fiasco' than anyone who was contributing on the internet at the time. He also appeared to have no fixed beliefs either way, which I found refreshing.
You are of course as entitled as anyone to give your own opinions, and so much the better if, as you imply, they are based on a deeper knowledge of the subject than others posting here, including me.
I look forward to hearing more of them.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Barry Street
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 03:42 pm | | Dear Caroline Anne Morris,
Thank you for an eminently sensible reply. Not wishing to propagate the diary nonsense any more than it already has been I am afraid I will add nothing more than I have already (and that's too much).
Yours aye |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 08:35 pm | | Hello Everyone.
Thanks to Shirley Harrison for her response and her willingness to discuss the diary even here among us (mostly) bellicose cynics. I hope the Cloak & Staggerers would welcome the opportunity to view the watch, and if possible, arrange (with Mr. Johnson's consent) some sort of photograph of the back. The photograph in "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" is pretty good considering the technical difficulties, but as far as I know there still hasn't been any definitive description of all the markings on the watch other than the original diagram Johnson made and that Feldman reproduced in his book. Perhaps in the proper lighting, or with some harmless graphite blown into the scratches, the markings would be more clear. Maybe Mr. Johnson could give an updated description?
To Mr. Street: I agree, of course, but timidly suggest that you are underestimating the complete idleness of the contributers to this Maybrick board. Certainly they (myself included) are much worse than you claim. Not content to squander time shilly-shallying about the diary, I strongly suspect that many are also wasting precious time on other equally useless activities. Bird watching, collecting antique wallpapers, reading the novels of Thomas Love Peacock, fiddling with the Chinese abacus, collecting hopelessly out-dated 78 gramophone albums, looking at Pre-Raphaelite paintings, pondering the identity of the Man in the Iron Mask, the Mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau, or the murmurings at the tomb of Memnon, etc., etc. Some might even be thinking about nothing at all! Personally, I always feel pleased and instructed to hear the voice of utilitarians and the champions of the Puritan Work Ethic. But some of us just can't help it; in our spare moments we revert to idle speculations and tedious historical irrelevancies that the useful and productive world has (quite rightly) no use for.
Caz-- despite the above commitment to voluntary inertia, I find myself rather busy this week-end. I'm not ignoring your comments and will respond 'soon'.
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 17 September 2000 - 08:52 am | | No probs RJ.
Believe it or not, when I'm not taking a sneaky peeky at the latest nonsense Barnett-wise or Maybrick-foolish on these boards, I too have plenty of equally useless hobbies to keep me out of mischief - like painting my toenails and stroking the cat, while waiting for the pizza man.
Well, hubby has gone off sailing round the Isle of Wight this weekend (much more useful and productive - I keep telling him he could achieve the same effect at home by standing under the shower in roller skates, unthreading and re-threading the shower curtain, while throwing up and flushing £50 notes down the lavatory, but will he listen?)
If Barry is still reading, my suggestion that the forgers be identified has nothing to do with a
‘misguided idea that we need to prove who the forgers are to prove the forgery.’
All I’m saying is that if ‘the dishonesty of the whole diary debacle’ is sticking in your craw so much, the only sure-fire way of curbing the ‘little money spinner’ and easing your discomfort is to expose the con-men or women whose forgeries may still be persuading Joe Public to part with his hard-earned cash ten years from now.
If you can’t see any loose ends in the modern hoax theory, when you look at the suspected group of forgers, that’s fine. But there are others who see scores of loose ends in every scenario – genuine, old fake or modern forgery – and would like to see them all tied up in a nice neat bow sometime. If nothing else, as a cautionary tale for the future, when the next dodgy-looking document to emerge could have a whole lot more serious repercussions.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 18 September 2000 - 08:32 pm | | Hello.
Caz--to comment on your comments. Back in June, when the Maybrick diary was generating much more interest, Melvin Harris posted some general comments on hoaxers & hoaxes (the Cottingley Fairies, etc.) which made a rather strong impression on me. (June 14th) To a fair degree, it changed the way I think about the the diary debate. One intriguing point: in discussing the 'Miracle at Knock', Harris made the interesting observation that public speculations as to the motives behind the apparition "were satisfying", but later proved --through confidential police reports-- to be 'way off track.' Hmm. Also, Mr. Harris wrote: "As for the identities of fakers. If they are known, public indentification may be inhumane, or of interest only to the morbid, the vindictive, or the I-told-you-so brigade. I have on file several cases where the identity of fakers is proven but exposure has been withheld."
To his detractors, these words probably suggest that Harris 'doesn't really know' or even that he is being 'coy' about evidence that isn't particularly strong. I, on the otherhand, who am impressed enough by Harris's writings to be confident about his honesty, tend to think that he is making a legitimate point. Does he have some confidential information that points to the identities of the hoaxers? More than likely. Is it suitable for public disclosure? Probably not. I think it is reasonable to suggest that there are ethical, legal, or even 'humane' reasons for not going public with it.
On the other hand, I fully appreciate the pro-diary or pro-"old hoax" crowd's position of not being willing to "take someone's word" for there being direct evidence of the fakers' identities. They demand evidence. Naturally. They must feel a good deal of frustration. It just strikes me that if all sides are truly dedicated to 'getting at the truth' (as has often been stated on these boards by all 'sides') there should be some effort to get together in private and exchange information. I think it might well be the only way the 'debate' will be resolved. (I readily admit that I probably don't understand all of the implications of what this might entail).
I personally don't have too many qualms about publically discussing whether or not Barnett or Druitt or D'Onston or whomever might have been involved in the Whitechapel murders (It was Druitt by the way). It is, afterall, a 112 year old mystery, and we should be allowed a certain historical licence to be gossip-mongers as long as it is understood that we are merely speculating and theorizing. It's a bit different with the Maybrick Diary, of course. There are good reasons why people on this board often talk in code.
But damn, have to run. More on Diemschutz's animal and other crucially important matters later.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: shirley harrison
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 09:20 am | | Please visit our sponsors to help support the Casebook!
Preview: New Message
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?: New Message
The following is a preview of your new message. If you used any formatting tags in your post, they
should be working correctly in the preview. If your post is correct, click on "Post this Message" below the
preview. Otherwise, you can revise your message.
By shirley harrison on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 01:13 pm:
I spoke too soon when I commented on the refreshingly better tempered nature of
the boards recently. Now we have Barry Street…..a contributor whose invective
and insult hurling seems to be indiscriminate. Bring back Melvin! Does anyone know
whether Melvin could, in fact, be ill and not actually in hiding because like other
serious investigators I would like to see a conclusion to the various challenges
that have been levelled.
I think that I am the ONLY contributor to the boards (and even this only recently
and infrequently) who is a true believer in the diary. So I assume that Barry
Street's ill-informed aggression and rudeness must be directed at me.
Its an amusing picture. This team of eager factory workers, feverishly churning out
subversive material with which to dupe Jo Public, under cover of darkness,
whipped on by my dreams of avarice. Who are they? Keith Skinner? Paul Begg?
Maybe Professor Canter the criminal psychologist? Possibly Professor Rubinstein. Or
Jeremy Beadle. Woops - name dropping again.
No. I am alone. Obviously I have a publisher [my original publisher is now a literary
agent] and my own agent but they have no part whatsoever in my research. My
work and my beliefs are my own but they most certainly do not preclude further
questioning. If Barry Street refuses to accept that I am honest and insists that my
motivation is "bread alone" then his insinuations are verging on the libellous.
Except of course that he names no names.
There is however a considerable body of respected agnostics - who like me, find
the diary and the watch uniquely challenging, and who are prepared to continue
exploring the possibilities.
The inference that there has been a cover up of the "huge sums of money" is also
offensive and frankly none of anyone's business. But I have repeatedly
acknowledged that in the first two years I made more money than I had made
before in my professional life - and yes - it was thrilling! But my goodness I worked
for it and even so it was not a fortune especially as I was responsible for meeting,
in part, some astronomical legal bills incurred by the publisher on our behalf, during
the fiasco with The Sunday Times. Even that money, spread over eight years,
averaged annually to less than any senior newspaper correspondent night earn.
Mike Barrett shared my earnings and expenses 50/50. This has never been hidden
and I am exasperated by the need to constantly repeat this message since I know
it falls on deaf ears.
It's a well known fact that many people suffering from many psychological
problems tend to transfer their own neurosis onto others. For instance, people
who know nothing accuse everyone else of ignorance. "Bilious drivel" ? Beware of
glass houses Mr Street.
Just had a thought. Perhaps Barry Street IS Melvin Harris?
To RJ. I agree about a private meeting although deciding who should be present could be interesting! My only anxiety is the somewhat hysterical and vindictive manner` (see above) in which the diary critics so often articulate their own disbelief. A discussion rather than a rant would be fine and useful to all. It would
need a superlative chairman!
Revise your Message
This is a private posting area. A valid
username and password combination
is required to post messages to this
discussion.
Username:
Password:
Please visit our sponsors to help support the Casebook!
Copyright © 1996-2000 Stephen P. Ryder and John A. Piper. All rights reserved. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 11:25 am | | Hi All,
RJ,
Firstly, I do remember the comments Melvin made back in June because I found myself having some sympathy with him regarding exposure of forgers in general. One case he mentioned concerned a faker with a complex love life trying to run two homes, where exposure would have caused great distress to three families. We can only guess how well this particular example relates to the case of Melvin’s diary faker, in terms of the ethical, legal or humane objections to a public disclosure. But it hits the spot nicely if it makes us think one of Melvin’s primary concerns in this case is to protect the faker’s family members from unnecessary distress. After all, what reasonable person would want to see anyone’s character being blackened in a public forum, causing distress to their families, associates and friends, in the process of exposing a hoax which, by his own admission, can be proved on the physical evidence alone, without naming a single name, or indulging in a single personal insult? Mmm….
Meanwhile, I’m very pleased to see that Shirley agrees that a private meeting would be ‘fine and useful to all’. Perhaps it’s time for Melvin to give Shirley the benefit of the doubt, and trust her with his information on the original forger. If his evidence is strong enough, and his reasons for wanting the forger’s name kept out of the public domain are sound ones, what has he got to lose – or fear?
So, come on Melvin, how about it? If you really do have the power to put the diary out of its misery, why not take this chance to end it all in a civilised manner, and put an end to the terrible distress caused every time anyone finds another of my daft posts on this board? J
I’d also like to hear what Peter Birchwood and others think. Should Melvin take the plunge?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 11:49 am | | Dear Shirley:
When I read your latest post I hadn't for some reason seen the message that had obviously upset you so much. (For some reason the computer in charge of emails at the Casebook sometimes forgets to send me things, thus showing that even the electronically inanimate are fallible.)
I looked back and found it and, to my surprise it really is very mild. There's little invective and hardly any hurled insults. But to your points...
Melvin is not to my knowledge ill (apart from a bit of back pain) and I'm sure that his absence from these boards is certainly nothing to do with hiding (how could you think that) and everything to do with decorating his new house.
Now I really don't think that it's you being got at here because you've said in the past that you don't consider yourself an expert on JtR. Who is, amongst the "eager factory workers" that you mention? Well, no matter how critical I have been concerning their diary statements I'd have to put Paul Begg and Keith Skinner on the "expert" side of the line. On the other side I would regretfully put Bill Rubinstein who although being a very pleasant man wrote a piece in History Today replete with basic flaws. I have commented on this fairly recently. David Canter seems to have very little idea of evidence and his conference speech verged on silly and Jeremy Beadle has an opinion which, perhaps because of his celebrity status, is listened to rather more than it is justified.
You don't have to tell us that your publishers, past and present plus your agent have no responsibility for your work. That's probably written into your contracts. And there is also nothing to be ashamed of in making a few pounds yourself. You are a professional writer and your books on the diary (even the bits I disagree with) are well written in the way that some Ripper-related works, naming no names, are not. But here is a small puzzle: in your second para you say that you are a "true believer in the diary" but later you seem to associate yourself with a "considerable body of respected agnostics." Is there a contradiction here?
There has been talk about research contracts associated with the possible diary film and it may be that this is what Mr. Street is referring to. At one point in the distant past we went into exact figures earned from the book but that is really none of our (the publics') business. I hope at least that you managed to claw back Mike's share of the expenses. As to your final comment on Mr. Street, I don't think it's justified. He may be forthright but there's little sign of ignorance.
And lastly be assured : whoever "Barry Street" is, he certainly isn't Melvin Harris.
Regards: Peter. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 03:41 pm | | GRAND ILLUSIONS
I see that Mrs Harrison describes a poster named Barry Street as "...a contributor whose invective and insult hurling seems to be indiscriminate." She also assumes that his "...ill-informed aggression and rudeness..." is directed at her. And then, in a grotesque flight of fancy, she writes "Perhaps Barry Street IS Melvin Harris?" Only someone devoid of logic and quite out of touch with the realities of this board could even think that!
But if the lady wishes to believe that I need to hide my identity and that I am so unknowledgeable and inexperienced that I need to indulge in indiscriminate invective, insult hurling and ill-informed aggression and rudeness (with her Ladyship in mind of course) then let her bring forth choice examples. Begg had a stab at this once and came up with the earth-shaking revelation that I had once described a test as "fatally flawed"! In Mrs Harrison's case I suggest she starts by citing prime insults etc from the first letter I sent her. Its ten pages, incidentally, had more things of value regarding the Diary than ALL the paid research she used put together! Later events and admissions prove this beyond doubt.
At the same time, since she terms herself "a serious investigator", I advise her to investigate the many absurdities enshrined in her Blake paperback. For a start, she should re-read every entry involving me in that book. There she will find constant misrepresentations on her part. Since she assumes a hard-done-by expression with ease, perhaps she can now explain why she is asking for gentle manners when she herself is well prepared to violate the basic tenets of fair play.
Meanwhile, let me state that I have resolved the issue of the conflicting advice given by Liverpool librarians. Their ownership of a copy of 'Sphere History of Literature' Vol 2, is not shown on their comprehensive catalogue. Anyone making an enquiry will be told (as I was) that they do not own a copy, UNLESS the librarian in question remembers the existence of a separate list known as the SHEAF catalogue. This item has not been transferred to their computer records. It took two hours and the brains of three librarians before this matter was resolved. However, the real problem still remains and has been quietly evaded by Harrison, Smith, and Feldman. How could ANY librarian direct Mike Barrett to that particular volume? The verse is not indexed in any way. And the volume itself is not a book of verse, but a series of dense essays that are without popular appeal. The four lines beginning "O costly intercourse" are just part of one such essay. The only person capable of pointing Mike to that particular essay would have to be someone who had read it and happened to recall those brief lines. So where is this ultra-rare librarian? That is the question that should have been addressed by Mrs Harrison the moment she knew that Mike owned a copy of Vol 2. Only the testimony of this person (if he or she existed) could have given credibility to Mike's far-fetched yarn. But, once again, the crucial questions were never pursued. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 04:32 am | | Hello Mr. Harris, welcome back.
The Sphere Guide came out in 1970; the second edition in 1986. I'm guessing Barrett owned the second edition, though this is only a guess. Either way, this conflicts with the 1968/69 memories of Anne Graham (and more recently of Steve Powell).
Clearly, there is no way a research librarian would have traced the quote back to the obscure essay in the Sphere guide. But, for the sake of argument, let's say a super-librarian existed, and found the quote. Let's also say that Maybrick, a man whose tastes ran to business and athletics, was a fan of this obscure, minor Roman Catholic poet. (I'm thinking Maybrick would be C of E?) Ok, we accept this. There is still the utterly unbelievable coincidence that Mike Barrett suddenly remembers that he owned a copy of the Sphere Guide---neatly tucked away in his attic! This is too much. Even Ms. Harrison tells in the new Blake edition how she was "extremely suspicious" and that there somehow "had to be a missing link." Let's be honest with ourselves.
I tried to coalesce various proposed dates for the diary last summer, using all sides. All of the most obvious indicators --'tree rings', if you will-- in the 'date-the-diary stump' got very wide around the years 1986, 1987, and 1988. Which, of course, is just shortly before the diary's appearance on the scene. Throwing out the chloroacetamide and everything else, and Sphere quote and the 'Tin box, empty' put the diary at post 1987. The 'when', I think is pretty obvious. The 'who' is suggested by the 'when'. All that left is the 'why'. This is obscure. Some may be more culpable than others. We don't know; at least I don't. I wonder about those knock-down fights on the kitchen floor. Being humane is a good thing. How about y'all meeting off set and discussing reconciliation and damage control? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 06:40 am | | Hi Melvin,
So Mike Barrett had to be involved in creating the diary content? Even if only to the extent of providing the obscure quote? Perhaps those who did most of the work (Devereux? Kane? Billy or Anne Graham? Or the Johnsons perhaps?) allowed Mike this one little effort in order for him to feel he had made a contribution other than just being the handler/placer of the document? He certainly seems unable or unwilling to prove any deeper involvement. In fact, when he was telling the world how he forged the thing single-handedly, it never occurred to him to mention Crashaw, possibly the only way he could guarantee that his story would be believed. Mind you, I guess we all realised very early on that he has never been overburdened with the grey matter. Which must make one wonder all over again why on earth anyone with an inkling of nous, whatever their motives, and however easy it was for them to knock this thing out in weeks, if not days, would trust this shabby piece of tat (which incidentally could not have been better designed to bring out the malevolence in people) in the hands of such a man. Maybe Anne had some ghastly premonition of all this conflict when she wrestled with Mike to try to stop him launching this thing on everyone.
I agree with RJ and Shirley about 'y'all meeting off set'. Discussing your beefs with the diary people privately might lend a bit of dignity at long last to this particular ping-pong match.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 08:53 am | | Shirley, thanks for the direction until recently I thought the new edition of your book was merely a reprint. Could someone give a valid e-mail for Shirley please.
Welcome Melvin, it is always rewarding to interact with an expert.
John |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 09:03 am | | ooops
I meant to post I would like to see the watch & would be interested in anything else ALbert would agree to. I would like to meet Albert but I can't imagine he could say or do anything other than show us the watch that could be objectively useful. Keep me informed if a meeting of any sort can be arranged.
John. |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 01:45 pm | | | John.....plans are afoot for Albert to bring the watch to London. But since he stands accused too, of being involved in forgery, I would imagine that something surely could be learned from his wiliness to expose himself to the interrogation of those who are, perhaps, more articulate and sophisticated than he is.....but who, I genuinely believe, is a man of total integrity. Perhaps he was duped too but I think not - however you must judge. He - and I - are prepared to submit to the ordeal by fire...... |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 01:48 pm | | | John.....plans are afoot for Albert to bring the watch to London. But since he stands accused too, of being involved in forgery, I would imagine that something surely could be learned from his wiliness to expose himself to the interrogation of those who are, perhaps, more articulate and sophisticated than he is.....but who, I genuinely believe, is a man of total integrity. Perhaps he was duped too but I think not - however you must judge. He - and I - are prepared to submit to the ordeal by fire...... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 08:16 am | | Hi All,
Great news that Albert is willing to bring his famous timepiece to London!
I echo Shirley's thoughts. We should appreciate the fact that this man, who has been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh public speculation on these boards, is prepared to face those who question his integrity, because it clashes with their own theories about the watch.
I think, in his shoes, many others would have taken up Two Gun Tex's offer by now, and we wouldn't see them or the watch for dust!
I do hope Albert will be treated courteously by all concerned.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 06:02 pm | | JOLLY JAPES
It has been asked why Barrett made no mention of the use of his Crashaw lines ("O Costly intercourse of death") when he was intent on claiming to be the faker. Well, he did. He made the claim first to private detective Allan Gray. He later made the same claim to me. To Gray he stated that his wife had wrongly transcribed the words. To me, since I did not accept that yarn, he said that he had given the quote "to Devereux and his pals" when they were faking the Diary. He said he thought it was a good one since it dealt with sex (intercourse!) and death- just like the Ripper.
Mike's copy of the Sphere book is the 1986 edition and was handed over to Allan Gray on December 6th 1994 at Mike's solicitors. On January 19th 1995 Mrs Harrison tried to get possession of this book from Mr Gray but he refused to play ball. Why she needed the volume was never made clear. This important piece of evidence is in safe keeping. As I have already reported it falls open on the very page that contains the give-away lines.
For those with short memories, let me remind them that I have more than once stated that, although not the faker, Mike had inside information. The Crashaw reference was one piece. The Mrs Hammersmith item another. Mike said it was "a joke about the man in the river"; that is Druitt. Now he died in the river near Hammersmith and modern writers have conjectured that he might have been involved with young boys at his school. The name Bobo is linked with Mrs Hammersmith in the Diary, as Mike pointed out. Bobo? On the surface this is nothing but a pet name for James' son. On another level it is a slang term for a young child's bottom! Hence the song "Feet up, pat him on the bo-bo let's hear him laugh!"
By this reasoning the Mrs Hammersmith of the Diary is the effeminate teacher who preyed on little boys and ended his/her days in the Thames. Far fetched? Well, the facts now show that a real life Mrs Hammersmith never existed. But she turns up in the Diary, and is the ONLY outsider mentioned, so the jokers must have put her there for a reason. The Druitt connection supplies a very good explanation. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 08:33 am | | Thanks for the laugh Melvin, almost as good as the one I got when I read your explanation of why dopey D'Onston wrote that the graffito was chalked above Eddowes's body.
Well, I'm glad you've got to the bottom of it all as usual. Though I'm not sure I like this obsession with bottoms (ahem - I meant the diary forger's obsession naturally) - you sure your chum D'Onston didn't have a hand in it (if you'll pardon the expression)?
Sorry, just going to wipe away the tears of mirth again... LOL
Caz |
|
|
|
|
