|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 January 22, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through January 22, 2001
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 10:38 am |        | Hi, Caz:
To follow up on my post just written, constructions such as "The whore seen. . ." are common in the working class of Liverpool today and would have been back in the nineteenth century as well. If you have ever heard Peter Reed, the manager of Sunderland F.C. speak, he talks in a thickish Liverpool ("Scouse") accent and his speech is littered with such ungrammatical constructions. Reed is an ex-Everton midfielder from Merseyside.
Again, I would not expect James Maybrick to use such ungrammatical constructions, but for the most part, unfortunately, the voice in the Diary sounds much like the middle class businessman it purports to be. Whether it is the authentic voice of James Maybrick is something else yet again. Probably not.
I would like to direct your attention to another aspect of the Diary. I have often thought that the voice and the handwriting betoken more those of a woman rather than a man. Others have commented on this as well. Whenever Florence is spoken of in the context of her infidelities and of James seeking revenge, she is referred to as "the whore." Whenever she is considered in the context of her children, she is usually referred to, for example, as "Bunny and the children." This seems to me to indicate a maternal interest that you would not expect to find if the Diary were really written by James Maybrick.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 12:20 pm | | Thanks Chris.
I also think there is quite a difference between using such slang in speech, as in Anne's interview, and actually writing it in the diary unknowingly, however much it is supposed to be a product of private thoughts, possibly scribbled carelessly or hurriedly. Most reasonably educated people use slang and bad grammar occasionally, but know when they are doing it, and usually manage to avoid the usual pitfalls when putting pen to paper - if they want to, that is. So I find it odd that someone, trying their best to write as well as Maybrick, a man of a higher class and education than themselves, didn't take the trouble to avoid at least such basic errors. I did wonder if the diary could have been written by an educated person, who had some reason to make Maybrick come across as less so? The various examples of bad grammar, spelling mistakes and mis-use of words in the diary do seem oddly inconsistent and artificial somehow.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 02:50 pm | | Has anyone have an electronic version of the diary?
It may be enlightening to run it through a modern word processor , many come with text analyisers which estimate the required readers age to comprehend the document. Anyone know what I mean? This could be used in reverse to suggest the "capacity" of the writer.
If the watch is a modern fake then Johnson must be involved. It would be comforting if the researchers involved would confirm for us that they spoke to the other workers present when the watch was opened & the discovery made.
Finally Steve I must have missed something somewhere ... what was the content of the discussion in 1969 ... is it elsewhere on the boards or yet to be revealed?
Cheers John |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 03:05 pm | | Hi, Caz:
I may be wrong about this, but I don't think the grammatical mistakes and spelling mistakes, etc., that are apparent in the Diary were done with the intent of making Maybrick seem less well educated as you seem to imply. I think they are the genuine and unintended mistakes of whomever concocted the Diary. The person who wrote the Diary is like an actor who has tried to impersonate James Maybrick. The role that he or she has been given (or have given themselves) is a dramatic monologue spoken by James Maybrick. However, at various points, this actor who is impersonating Maybrick has let the mask slip and shown us that they are not Maybrick after all. I think it was Kenneth Rendell who noticed that the Diary looked as if it had been written over a relatively short period rather than over a matter of months as it purports to have been. I concur with this view and think that this explains some of the sloppiness and lack of care about grammar. Whomever was writing it was not only trying to seem like the drug-addicted Maybrick but may have been under a constraint of time to get the Diary done in order to foist it on the unsuspecting world.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 11:08 pm | | Chris--Yup, you're correct. I recently read Kenneth Rendell's Forging History, and it was his opinion that many of the entries in the diary were written in one sitting. This was based mainly on the uniformity of the writing, the angle of the paper remaining the same, etc. I believe Joe Nickell made the same point.
Hey Caz--Thanks for keeping me on my toes! Yes, Albert bought the watch in 1992. I don't mind so much when the body starts to show signs of aging, but when my mind slips it is very depressing :-( Anyway, as you seem to have appreciated, the point is still valid. With Albert sticking to his story, the Maybrick genealogy isn't exactly compelling. Unless one believes the 'two watch' theory. But, ah, there's the rub. For Albert's seeming honesty is the strong point for those that accept the watch; Feldy's 'two watch' theory would undermine that credibility.
Meanwhile, I don't quite follow your statement that the recent/independent hoaxing of the watch 'seems beset with its own problems'. Are you calling the hounds again to the Wild/Turgoose chase? Those 'aged bronze particles'? Or is there something else, as well?
But speaking of those particles, there are two or three things that I've always wondering about. First, isn't the idea that a forger would need a scanning microscope a little overblown? My feeling is that if Maybrick could innocently introduce brass particles into the scratches 'the natural way' 100 years ago (with a brass awl), it must be possible to do the same thing in the 1990s. And what exactly is 'aged' bronze? How does one tell the age of a metal? This was one of Melvin Harris's points. Brass is an alloy and of a myriad of colours, do we really know the particles are old? Could old brass come off an old awl? And finally, it would be interesting to know exactly in which scratches the particles were found. It is somewhat confusing that Turgoose & Wild refer to 'the engravings' in their reports....I imagine they must mean the scratches. Were the brass particles found in the 'J.O.', the '1275', the '20789', or in the 'I am Jack'? It might make a difference.
John--Shirley Harrison & Keith Skinner tracked down Albert's co-workers and confirmed his story. If you have the latest edition of Harrison's book, it is discussed on p. 241.
RJP
PS. I've always wanted to ask: am I the only one that thinks 'Chickens with their heads cut off' doesn't sound the least bit Victorian? |
Author: Stephen Powell
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 12:48 am | | tuesday 9-1-2001
Dear caz,I stand corrected and thank you for your point on my statement that said;
'...I heard Donald remark, that there is a
woman claiming to have the diary of jtr...'
As soon as I read your mail,I realised I had indeed made a bad mistake on the sex of the diary holder,I simply was wrong on this point and can only put it down to being tired at the writing time. I feel it is the only mistake I have made so far in all of our communications.
Sorry about that.
As for the Murder site of Mary Kelly,I checked my passport and found my arrival date at Gatwick was 30 sept 1993,This means that my tour of whitechapel with Donald,was in the first week of October.
Mary Kellys room was there at the time and I believe Donald said it would not be there much longer as it was marked for re-development,to my horror.
To John Dixon.
Somewhere on the casebook must be my letter concerning my meeting a nurse in australia in 1969 who told me of the diary,I shall endeavour to find it or send you a copy.
Bye all and once again,sorry for the blunder.
steve powell. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 02:15 am | | Hi, Stephen:
I am glad you recognize that you misspoke when you said you thought Donald Rumbelow said that there was in 1993 a woman (meaning Anne Graham) who claimed to have the Diary of Jack the Ripper, since at that time Mike Barrett was the one who claimed to have received the Diary from his friend Tony Devereaux.
Just as I want to believe you about your meeting with Anne Graham in Australia in the 1960's, I very much want to believe that you took the tour with Don in 1993, and hope that he remembers you being on the tour with him, and the conversation about the Diary that you related to us. As you know, Stewart Evans has said he will talk to Don when the two of them get together this coming weekend.
You may or may not know that Stewart Evans saw the murder scenes in the 1960's before the East End changed. At that time, Stewart took photographs of the murder scenes, and some of his photographs appear on this site and in the books on the case. However, he did not take a picture of Miller's Court, for it was no longer there. The building containing the room where Mary Jane Kelly was killed in fact was demolished in 1928, a fact that is recorded in the excellent pictures section of this site (see http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/sitepics.w-miller.html)
Possibly you saw something with Don in the London Dungeon or somewhere similar that you thought was Mary Jane Kelly's murder room? For surely, in 1993, you could not have seen 13 Miller's Court, since it had been demolished 65 years previously.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Stephen Powell
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 05:01 am | | TO SHIRLEY HARRISON
Please e-mail me your new telephone number,
I have some news for you.
I shall in the next few days post this news to you all at the casebook.
regards
steve powell |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 07:25 am | | Hi All,
Hi Chris,
I do take your points and you may well be right. Certainly, it seems much more likely that a forger would have conceived, then written the diary over days or weeks, but not months, as it purports. But your explanation that the author '...may have been under a constraint of time to get the Diary done in order to foist it on the unsuspecting world' is less easy for me to agree with, when I consider all the circumstances, Mike Barrett being left in sole charge, the only one set to gain anything financially, and then only because of his own decision to 'foist it' anywhere. If there was a time constraint, who do you think set it, when and why? And did it all go to plan, or was it all thrown out of sync by Tony D's untimely death?
Hi RJ,
I think we could probably disregard as irrelevant the attempts by Feldy to find provenance for both watch and diary through unproven family ties. I prefer to delve into Albert's own story, and work out what the support is for his claim to know nothing about who made the scratches or when. The inconclusive scientific tests on the watch are a problem whichever theory you consider - I wasn't thinking of the science when I wrote of the specific problems besetting the independent opportunist forger, as opposed to one in cahoots with the diary hoaxers. You have to think the whole thing through and try to make some sense of it. For instance, for Albert to have jumped on the diary bandwagon, he must have heard the very basic news of a Maybrick-as-JtR diary being discovered and, without further ado, fired ahead with his plan for a corresponding watch to foist on this unsuspecting world. Then he must have found the earliest opportunity to set up his workmates and perform the charade of the joint 'discovering' and examining of the scratches, and the phonecalls to the press etc. But what exactly was his time constraint? Whatever his rush, it wasn't to use the watch to get himself out of any immediate financial difficulties. And if you believe that the hoaxer's purpose was to dash out a believable counterpart to the Maybrick diary prior to its publication, and before any of the details became generally available, doesn't that presuppose that he was privy to at least some of those details, otherwise where was his perceived advantage?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 08:24 am | | Hello.
I was fortunate enough to have been on Donald Rumbelow's walk in the mid 1990s, as well. (I think it was 1995 or 1996). Some of Steve's details are correct; the walk starts at the Tower, for instance, and there is a half-way break at the Ten Bells. The first stop was in front of a section of the old London Wall, and I think Mitre Square was early on. But the visit to 'Miller's Court' was at the very end of the walk, and was nothing more than a metal staircase (I think it was painted green) on the side of a warehouse of some sort, which was in the general vicinity of where Miller's court once stood.
Maybe this helps.
Caz--I still don't think there is anything on the watch that suggests that is was forged by the same hand that wrote the diary. Maybrick's name had appeared in The Liverpool Daily Post. There is only the initials of the 5 canonical victims. If the forgers wanted to use the watch as 'corroborating evidence' wouldn't they have hit us over the head with something like 'Sir Jimmay, ha ha ha' scratched on the watch? It seems to me that Maybrick's 'signature', the initials of the victims, and 'I am Jack' are exactly the elements that a bandwagon jumper with little information would tend to come up with. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 12:30 pm | | Hi RJ,
Okay, I take your point, but I'll repeat my question. What was Albert's time constraint? In your opinion, what were the advantages of producing his watch before the diary was published, and becoming, in your own words 'a bandwagon jumper with little information', over waiting to see what all the fuss was about first, then becoming an informed bandwagon jumper? Did he want to be in time to get a mention in the book? Is he basically a publicity seeker? Or perhaps he thought that if he didn't get in there first, someone else would.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 02:52 pm | | RJ & Caz,
If we go with uninformed band wagon jumper why sign the watch J. N. Maybrick ?
That would seem an unneccessary risk.
James is not known to have an initial, Is he?
I have noticed he had a 1st. cousin who lived in Liverpool of the same age & name ... I wonder if either 1 of them used a distinguishing initial.
Thanks to all for answers to my questions ... saves hours of research ... I must get Shirleys updated version.
cheers John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 04:32 am | | Hi All,
Hi John,
Can you let me know where you got the middle initial N from? I can't find any mention of it being scratched in the watch. And yes, you must get Shirley's updated version. There's so much more in it. :-)
Hi RJ,
I just noticed again your unanswered question: 'am I the only one that thinks 'Chickens with their heads cut off' doesn't sound the least bit Victorian?'
Do you mean that the precise wording of the whole phrase sounds modern, as opposed to, say, 'headless chickens'?
(I sound even denser today than usual, if that's possible, so you'll have to excuse me. :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen Powell
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 06:16 am | | Dear RJ
Are you sure you really saw that green staircase?
(joke)
I feel really strange about this miller st biz.
I asked my daughter in front of two witnesses to remember and tell us what happened on that tour and although our story differs in smal details,she remembers millers ct!?
I showed her a photo of millers and she recognised it straight away.
If we were not shown what we believed to be millers,where was it and why was it so similar to the real thing,did Donald use it as a 'showpoint'.
Gee,I'd love to win a round here...
Come on Donald,tell me I'm right or give me the number of a good doc.
steve powell. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 07:01 am | | Hi, Caz and R.J.:
I have tried several web searches and some good old-fashioned book research to try to find out how old the term "chickens with their heads cut off" might be but so far without success. One of the sites that turned up, with a dead URL, was a Diary site! Unlike you, R.J., I have no special sense that the term may not have been in used in Victorian times, although as Caz notes possibly not in that particular construction.
Surely the concept of headless chickens running around is an old one? On the other hand, my web search did turn up numerous sites that talk about Mike the Headless Chicken, a headless fowl in Fruita, Colorado, that was featured articles in Life and Time magazines in 1945 (see http://members.tripod.com/earthdude1/headless_chicken/mike.html). Four photographs of Mike the Headless Chicken appeared in the October 22, 1945 issue of Life magazine, pp. 53-54, under the headline, "Headless Rooster - Beheaded chicken lives normally after freak decapitation by ax."
I would not think the year 1945 could be the first time the term "headless chicken" if not "chickens with their heads cut off" was first such a term was used, can it? I would think it is an older, traditional farming idea, is it not? I will continue to look out for older usages of such a term. (It's my birthday today, I've got nothing better to do  )
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 07:13 am | | Hi Steve:
Actually the present-day site of 13 Miller's Court is a set of green shuttered doors in a warehouse on the north side of what was once known as Dorset Street. Look at the 1999 photographs by John A. Piper of the location, at http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/jpphotos.html?show=2 and http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/sitepics.w-miller.html
I will grant you that you may have gone somewhere on the tour with Don Rumbelow that made you think you were looking at Miller's Court--and the mind does play tricks as well. I would like to get to the bottom of this too. Yet another intriguing Ripper mystery!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 08:11 am | | Many Happy Returns Chris!
All I've found so far are a couple of entries in The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, which compare humans with chickens in a similar way. Chicken leads you to Neck:
'To get it in the neck' is an Americanism - I got it where the chicken got the axe - "in the neck".
'To stick one's neck out': To ask for trouble; to expose oneself to being hurt, as a chicken might stick out its neck for the axe.
I'll stick my own neck out and say the concept of chickens still running around after the farmer's axe has struck, and the image being used to describe clueless humans, are both very old, which is why I guess RJ means the precise diary wording. (Actually, the diary author could have been describing all those still just as clueless about his/her creation!)
Have a great day, and try not to get out of breath blowing all those candles out. ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen Powell
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 09:02 am | | yo christopher!
hb2u
hb2u
hb dear christopher
hb2u
Chickens eh?
well,If my memory serves me correct...
'Chickens running around with there heads cut off' must be yonkers old.My Irish mother told me of it when I was young,it was an old saying that she was told when she was young.
If you've ever seen a poor bugger get the chop,you understand very quickly,that it denotes a frenzied attempt to escape,with no particular place to go.
Ask Colonel Sanders...
Have a great day & night Christopher.
steve powell. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 06:47 am | | From Keith Skinner to Steve Powell
Dear Steve
Thank you for your response to my question.
Allowing that you may have mentioned the Diary, in passing, to Don Rumbelow during the first week of October 1993 - could you now fast forward to the time when you read Paul Feldman's book and experienced confused memories from the past. What happened after that? Who did you contact?
Could you also tell me which edition of Shirley's book reawakened similar memories for you?
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 02:34 pm | | Caz,
I actually got the "JN Maybrick" signature off this board a while ago. If you look at the original watch photo thats what it looks.
Don't tell me ... explained away in edition 2? I'll try to catch up. :-)
Can anyone give me SPECIFIC passages of the diary that have implied differing dates that appear to be have been written in 1 hit? I have noted the generalised criticism but have not seen a specific reference by anyone.
I shall look for some headless chickens when next free to do so!
Cheers John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 01:20 pm | | Hi all:
In regard to the scratches on the inside cover of the watch that closes over the works, these are so crudely done that we have to wonder if they represent what Shirley Harrison contends they do, i.e., the confession "I am Jack," the initials of the five canonical victims, and the signature "J. N.(?) Maybrick". The plain fact though is that the handwriting style of the initials of the "victims", which Harrison implies was done by one man, James Maybrick, are not the same. For example, the "C" in "CE" thought to represent Catherine Eddowes is more rounded, taller, and uniform than the Gothic-looking "C" in the "AC" said to represent the initials of Annie Chapman. To my mind, these initials were made by two separate people. Certainly as well, some of the marks, those that include numbers are simply jeweler's marks not anything to do with the Ripper case or Maybrick.
Additionally, what do we make of the evident extensive cleaning marks on this inside back cover of the watch? Were they, as has been said, possibly made by someone going round and round with Brasso (my addition) to make the engravings look old? Some or all of these marks were made by Paul Dundas of the Clock Workshop, West Kirby, Wirral, who said he noted the scratches in the back. According to Harrison's latest paperback he admitted, "I tried to buff them out with jeweller's rouge."
What if Dundas is not responsible for all of those cleaning scratches? Why would someone clean the INSIDE back cover of a watch? This is the bottom of the watch, below the face and workings and would only be visible if you open the watch up. Besides, if the watch is made of gold, as we are told, it should not need cleaning. You clean silver or brass but not gold, although admittedly the inside back cover of the watch may be an alloy and not the gold the outer parts of the watch are.
Just some thoughts on a lazy Saturday on another mystery pertaining to the Watch/Diary problem.
Chris George |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 06:23 pm | | Chris,
your supposition is no better than ours on these points.
If James is near death when the marks are made then they wouldn't match. You wouldn't seriously compare someone's handwriting to their engraving style ... even if they were skilled , would you?
( Although I am prepared discuss this possibility )
Dundas is not apparently certain of his evidence ( as per Feldman ... yes I still need that new book of shirley's ! )
By & By , I had not understood that the contention is that the conical 5 initials are infact repairers marks ... that I do find ludicrous.
Good point however about cleaning the inside of a watch.
I have some friends interested in watches , I'll ask. They have told me that repairers marks can be anything that could be anywhere on the watch ... not much help. However by all means tell me the odds of 5 repairers having the same initials as the 5 ?? :-)
Again all I can say is we need more research to be done. & no you don't have to do it.
Cheers John |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 06:30 pm | | Chris ,
Give me odds on FC 9/3 being "meant" to be other than Florence Chandler born 3rd of Sept.
& yes fred clobs repaired this watch on the 9th of march is a possibility but give me the odds!!!
cheers John |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 06:33 pm | | Sorry
I should have used "Terry Clobs" in my example!
John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 10:32 pm | | Hi, John:
Yes you do need to get Shirley's latest edition, therein you will see, p. 244, that the "FC 9/3" that you interpret as "Florence Chandler born 3rd of Sept." is interpreted as "H 9/3" (p. 244, Blake edition). Which goes to prove that any of this is simply in the eye of the beholder, doesn't it? I have to say that in the 154-year life history of the watch (1846/7 to 2001) it has to have gone through a number of watch repairers, so jeweller's marks and seemingly cryptic numbers and initials are to be expected. And yes even if Maybrick was addled with arsenic, I would expect him to form his letters of the alphabet about the same way, which he (or whomever is posing as him) does throughout the Diary.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 06:50 am | | Hello Everyone.
When Dr Turgoose went to examine the watch for the first time, he was unable to get the back of the watch off in order to study the scratches. And yet, we are told, when Albert innocently brought the watch to show his work mates (not yet knowing about the Maybrick engravings) the back was somehow taken off, held it to the light, and the very faint scratches were discovered. This doesn't prove anything, of course, but it is a little hard for me to believe that the situation was not manipulated to make the discovery of the scratches seem spontaneous. As even Feldman admits (p 33) it seems 'fortuitous' that this discovery was made a very short time after Maybricks's 'alias was to become public for the first time in 105 years.'
RJP |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 07:38 am | | Having spoken with Don yesterday he categorically states he has no recollection whatsoever of the previously described incident/conversation. He further states that he has shown thousands around the murder sites and has had countless conversations with tourists. He says that if anyone does state personal theories or information his advice is usually for them to do something with it if they feel it's worth it. He does not become involved in these things himself.
As stated Miller's Court was demolished in 1928 (the whole north side of Dorset Street was) to make way for an extension to Spitalfields Market. That is the reason I was unable to photograph it in 1967 when I took shots of the surviving murder sites. |
Author: John Dixon
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 07:47 am | | Rj,
Yep,
I can imagine a scientist not wishing to damage something valuable & not knowing about watches.
Another thread here is that Albert paying £200 for a watch would indicate he knows something about watches.
Sorry Chris didn't mean to be so forceful last night. :-) As I said I'll see what I can find out about engraving. What then is your opinion of why the marks in the middle of the watch so much better than those on the edge? Simply newer?
Cheers John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 10:21 am | | Hi, Stewart:
Thank you so much for getting back to us about whether Don Rumbelow had any recollection of meeting Steve Powell and learning of Steve's encounter with Anne Graham in Australia in the late 1960's when she told him she had the Diary. Don did not remember the encounter, which is not surprising since as you say he meets and talks to thousands of tourists each year. We appreciate you following up the enquiry.
Hi John:
In regard to the engraved marks in the back cover of the watch being more pronounced in the middle than at the sides, that may be a function of the burnishing done by Paul Dundas of the Clock Workshop, West Kirby, Wirral, who said he "tried to buff out [the scratches] with jeweller's rouge" plus if there was an attempt by anybody else to polish over the marks to make them appear old. Being on a concave surface, the friction would be greater at the outside edges than in the middle, where the friction of the burnishing would be less so any engravings would appear more pristine.
John, you had also asked if there were examples of passages of the Diary supposedly written days apart having been written at one sitting. I think there are a number of examples of this, where the writing looks alike. Often when the writing starts again the writer begins with a cramped hand that looks like a new entry. A similar larger, more free-flowing hand might indicate that passages supposedly written days apart were all written at one time. I am thinking, for example, of two neighboring pages toward the end of the Diary where the writer tells us on one page, "This coming Christmas I will make amends." Then on the page directly opposite, he/she writes, "The children enjoyed Christmas. I did not." These passages do look very much as if they were written at the same sitting, with a similar color to the ink (I am looking at the black and white transcript in the Hyperion hardback, so I talking about the shade of gray) and there are similar smudges of the ink. I would be interested to know what Shirley Harrison thinks of my contention that these two passages and others may have been written at the same time instead of days apart as is implied by the text of the Diary.
Chris George |
Author: John Dixon
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 10:50 am | | Thanks Chris,
You have a long way to go as far as I'm concerned with the initials. I had always taken that the 2 central marks were thought to be repairers marks & the rest faked. You are apparently taking the view that some of the conical 5 initials are also unrelated marks hence they are not in the same "handwritting". I'll consider this.
Just to get some idea of where you're coming from do you believe the watch is a separate later therefore opporuntistic fraud?
I'll check the passage you talk about.
Do we have any more news on if Albert would show us the watch?
Can't you tell I don't have any work at the moment ... nothing better to do than this!
Cheers John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 11:40 am | | Hi, John:
Well, believe it or not, I am doing some work for a big deadline coming up on Tuesday. To answer your question, I find it hard to believe that a watch came to light at just the right moment to "support" the Diary. It seems to have appeared very conveniently when needed, doesn't it? Maybe the Diary forgers thought something else was needed to lend support for story told by the Diary? Yet the provenance of the engraved watch is just as muddled and nonexistent as that of the Diary which makes it likely that both are forgeries done to hoodwink the public.
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 11:58 pm | | Caz--To touch on your questions from last week about Albert & his watch...
My feeling is that the watch is an indepedent hoax. There was no real time constraint, since I think the 'motive' was probably little more than publicity seeking or 'for a bit of fun'. The Liverpool Daily Post first revealed that Maybrick was the diarist on 22 April, 1993. Albert first contacted Harold Brough (who quickly dismissed it) sometime in mid or early May. He then wrote to the publisher Robert Smith at the beginning of June 1993. So, for the story to fit, we need Albert & his friends to 'just happen' to discover the scratches 2-3 weeks after Maybrick's identity as Jack the Ripper appeared in print. Common sense would suggest that someone created the scratches after seeing the article in the Post. But who? Did this start as some sort of practical joke perhaps?
Since Brough was the one that gave Robert Smith's name to Albert, I think it is fairly safe to say that the watch was not hoaxed in order to give some sort of supporting evidence to the diary's authenticity, or for quick cash. But it is interesting to note the immediate reaction of some of the players in the diary drama. Shirley Harrison writes that 'I felt a near sense of panic. Here, more than likely, was the first of the bandwagon riders...'. (p 239). Harold Brough gave it a 'quick dismissal' (Feldman, p.30). Feldman himself writes: 'On balance? Ugh. I didn't like it' (p 33). The only person that seems to have been impressed was Robert Smith; but then, he was soon going to publish the diary. Maybe he thought that the watch would be good publicity.
To be honest, for some reason, the watch doesn't really interest me very much. Perhaps this is because I don't think it is connected to the diary. But there is one thing that I noticed that I thought I'd throw in your direction; maybe you can make some sense of it. Paul Feldman writes that 'Albert claimed his knowledge of Jack the Ripper was negligible and that he had always believed that the Ripper was (interestingly) a Liverpudlian who emigrated to Australia and buried his victims under the floorboards. (This, I think, must be Fredrick Deeming, one of the many Ripper suspects." (Feldman, p. 30).
Now compare this to where Shirley Harrison writes about going to visit Albert's friend from work, a certain Mr. White, who recalled how the scratches were discovered, and how he & Albert went and researched Jack the Ripper at the college library. Mr. White is quoted as saying 'Well, that Maybrick could be Jack the Ripper. I was reading his diary in the Echo. He is supposed to have murdered his wife and buried her body under the floorboards and gone off to America.'
Hmm. What exactly is going on here? When they that have met these gentlemen say that Albert & Mr. White seem honest, straight forward, etc., I believe them. But it strikes me as strange that both men demonstrate their ignorance of Jack the Ripper by stating oddly similar misconceptions about what I would guess would be a fairly well-known story in the UK. (I admit this is not exactly May Day at the Kremlin, but perhaps it is a small red flag of sorts). What do you think?
Regards,
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 11:45 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
Thanks for that. On the surface, your common sense suggestions and explanations are hard to find fault with (bugger! :-)), but you know me – rarely satisfied with the obvious, especially when it comes with a blatant “how suspicious is that?!” tag.
If the watch was a hastily scratched up ‘bit of fun’, calculated for nothing much more than a bit of instant headline-grabbing, it must be a constant source of surprise and amusement to Albert, that some of the professionals most closely involved have failed to brush aside his creation as a likely irrelevance, or drop it like a hot brick. Does the simple answer – a combination of incompetence, undue credulity and vested interest – really satisfy you? Or do you wonder, as I do, why those involved appear to remain sincerely and genuinely at a loss to explain why the watch is still ticking away beside the diary, holding its own? What other questions could we put to them?
Your small red flag concerning Albert and John White’s claimed ripper knowledge is interesting. I guess it would be best if Albert could confirm his words to Feldy and offer some clarification. But if his knowledge really was negligible, as it still is with virtually everyone I come into contact with here in the south, I wouldn’t read too much into it myself. At that time, for example, I knew a few details about the ripper’s victims and his crimes, but virtually nothing regarding suspects or their names, beyond the basic mad doctor theories, and the fact that the case was an unsolved one. I must admit I don’t think I’d even heard of the Deeming case then. But no doubt things would be different in Liverpool, where he committed some of his murders. Perhaps Chris George can tell us how familiar your average Liverpudlian would be with the actual details. I’ve noticed that people with only the vaguest idea or interest in such things sometimes use phrases like ‘I’ve always believed’, where ‘all that really sticks in my mind’ might be more accurate. And if Albert only had a hazy recollection of the Deeming story to start with, wouldn’t it be natural to absorb, incorporate and repeat the latest details from his conversation with John White? Isn’t that how misconceptions thrive?
Love,
Caz |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 05:07 am | | I have tried to post this twice and it just wouldn't go ....so here's the third time lucky....Hello" RJ. I have only just caught up with your post of Jan 3rd and think I should make an effort to explain…..not to evade of course! How I wish that Id been debating with you all those years ago…..I have become much tougher but Melvin's use of language really got to me in the beginning and had I had enough spare cash I might have been tempted to go for "defamation"!
Right. You say that "no one bothered" to take up Melvin's offer. This is actually an understandable misinterpretation of what happened (and I have to admit I needed to sort through my files of the time to remember exactly what was going on.) We felt then - as I would feel now - that having lost, literally, tens of thousands of pounds to lawyers (you probably know that the author has to share the publisher's legal bills and my publisher was using Mischon de Reya - (Princess Diana's lawyer) I did not feel inclined to pour more money into a solicitor's coffers when it was not necessary. It has been pointed out on the boards that all the solicitor would do was tell me there were legal reasons for Melvin NOT to name his alleged forgers. That would get us nowhere at all.
What I need on the table of an independent judge is the PROOF which supports Melvin's claim. You are right Melvin's effort and enthusiasm in the cause of Integrity are impressive But I gather from better informed ripper colleagues that he has been wrong in the past. I have sometimes felt quite overwhelmed by his scientific knowledge - but with the best will in the world even the ink tests are not conclusive - there are differences of opinion amongst the experts.
You speak of the way in which "wierdly improbable" answers have been produced "from somewhere" in answer to Melvin's observations on The Poste House etc. If I appear guilty of this particular`offence (which I hope I'm not) it will have been been because of insatiable curiosity about the whole affair and because time and time again such extraordinary coincidences have occurred which have taught me not to accept anything on face value. I believe in cautious lateral thinking. Some of these bizarre discoveries have illustrate, I think, my point. For instance….there's the marriage certificate for a Michael John Barrett`and a woman called Susan Claire Jones around 1974 (p 158 Paul Feldman's book). The handwriting appears to be Mikes - even he was convinced that it was and was dumbfounded! We feared he was a bigamist. But further research into the archives by Paul Feldman's team proved that this was a completely different Michael Barrett who had, indeed once lived in our Mike's street. But there was no connection at all. It beggared belief.
Similarly the Hammersmith story IS odd. For a modern forger to have used a name belonging to the only Hammersmith in the 1881 census for Britain at the time, for that Hammersmith to come from near Liverpool and then for us to discover that there was a clerical error is to me endlessly fascinating stuff…I did not need to tell of our discoveries about the non-existent Mrs H - but I did.
All this proves nothing but illustrates the wierdness of the twists and turns we have faced and still face at every turn.
Whether "the rogues" are sitting pretty seems to me beside the point. It's true that I doubt we would sue them - not because we have made a mint from their crimes. I personally don't have the money to enter into legal battles - and what for? If Melvin is correct in his assumptions then the "forgers" can hardly sue him for defamation either! But IF the truth is out there then at the very least Melvin surely owes it to history to reveal what he knows.
As things stand, I think it all remains a question of belief - the leap in the dark of faith - so I shall continue on my road to Damascus. Who knows I may get converted on the way.
So far as the watch is concerned..Robert Smith was the only one to be excited at the beginning because he was the only one who had seen it. Once we had seen it too and met Albert we felt it worth investigating. Albert is very happy to come to London and will do `so this year but the problem is largely economic - he would need to come on a day trip which means a lunch time gathering and this is not so easy to arrange. But Im hoping it can be done. Would Melvin be interested I wonder? Incidentally it was not Tim Dundas who buffed the scratches - it was Ron Murphy who sold Albert the watch. |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 05:17 am | | | This is a PS.......have just noticed the May Day at the Kremlin comment. No the story of Jack the Ripper is not known in any detail by most people.Everyone knows the name - it is legendary - but thats about it.The places, the murder victims etc - no. In Liverpool especially there seems to be blinding lack of interest in the subject. We in London found Anne's own disinterest in the diary originally a bit hard to swallow but when I spent time up there I realised she was not alone. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 07:12 am | | Hi Shirley, R.J., and Caz:
Indeed, Shirley, I misread the entry in your latest paperback (p. 243) where you do say the person who who buffed the scratches in the watch was Ron Murphy (owner of the store on Sea View Road, Wallasey, who sold Albert the watch) and not Tim Dundas, as I stated. Thanks for the correction!
I have to agree with Shirley that on Merseyside there is probably a prevailing ignorance of the Ripper story. Or, at least, people are probably as ill- or well-informed as anyone anywhere, that is, if you have an interest in the topic, have read widely and seen all the documentaries, you will be well-informed on the case (as frequenters of this site may be), but that undoubtedly will not be the case with the majority of individuals on Merseyside or the world at large. If the average person has any knowledge of the Ripper, it may be that they think the Prince did it, or Maybrick, or Deeming (?), as Johnson and friend said. Most people's "knowledge" (if they know anything about the topic) is likely to be half-baked rather than informed.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 06:25 pm | | Hi All,
RJ,
I’ve been thinking some more about your post, in which you suggested that the watch is an independent hoax, and that the motive ‘was probably little more than publicity seeking or ‘for a bit of fun’.’ You also pointed out that there was only a short period of time – 2-3 weeks – from the first news of Maybrick being named as the diarist, to Albert contacting Brough about the scratches he and his friends ‘just happen’ to have discovered.
The implication is that, once the scratches were in place, the forger quickly devised his next plan - to ‘discover’ them in the presence of his unsuspecting work mates. They would help him examine his find and make the first contact with the press appear like the result of a joint exercise. Later they would also make reliable witnesses. Already his ‘bit of fun’ appears to have a fair bit of careful thought and planning attached to it. But have you asked yourself how such a plan was devised, and how it actually worked?
According to Keith Skinner, one of his earliest questions concerned how Albert and friends came to be talking about watches in the first place. Apparently, the work mates had been discussing the popular weekly BBC television programme, Antiques Roadshow, and the conversation was about watches, and, as a result, Albert brought his own gold one in to show them. So who initiated the conversation? And was it a normal one for that particular workplace? More importantly, did it all happen in a natural, unforced way, consistent with Albert’s known interests and behaviour? Was anyone present left with the impression, either at the time, or later when all the fuss really started and they were asked to think back, that Albert had been winding up more than the watch that day? Keith sought answers to all these questions, but found no evidence that Albert had been the instigator, nor any suggestion that he had manipulated the situation or his friends for his own purposes. Of course, this doesn’t prove he didn’t do so – for your scenario to work, he must have done. But it would have been quite a subtle affair, involving many factors coming together nicely and working in his favour. And let’s not forget the bit of luck which apparently kick-started it - the shared interest in that current tv show, which gave him just the excuse he needed, at just the right time, to introduce the faked watch and start the ball rolling.
Another problem I have with your suggested motive is Albert’s reaction when his publicity-seeking ‘bit of fun’ was taken on board and began to be investigated seriously. Did he show any apprehension that his little game may be going too far too fast, or that the diary, an unknown quantity for him, could prove to be a fake at any time, taking the watch down with it? Not a bit of it - he confidently parted with money he could probably ill-afford, to pay towards scientific reports which could catch him out. What does this suggest to you? That he is a skilled forger who meant business, and who knew the scratches could not be proven recent, no matter who was chosen to examine them? (Not much use to him, of course, if the diary were to let him down.) Or is he just the reckless type, who trusts to luck, and cares little about the possible consequences of his actions, or what others may think of him? If and when Albert is interviewed, it will be interesting to compare notes. But for now, assuming either case is true, if Albert wanted to come across as sincere, by actively encouraging all possible tests on the watch, it seems a wee bit over the top to help finance them too - unless he had a genuine personal interest in the findings. What do you think?
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 22 January 2001 - 08:23 am | | Dear Shirley Harrison: thanks for responding to my previous post. I only have time for one quick question at present. Could you possibly elaborate on the statement made by the Murphys (p. 243) where they state 'Some time after Mr Johnson got the watch he kept coming back and asking questions about where it came from.'? This is more than a little curious. Albert did not discover the scratches until May 1993, some 11 months after the purchase. Could you possibly refer back to your notes and tell us whether Albert was questioning the Murphys before or after that date? Many thanks.
Caz--Sorry for the brevity here. (Grrr. Work. Curse of the working-classes). I don't think it has been determined whether or not Albert truly paid for the testing of the watch. It seems to depend on what person is asked. He did receive a couple of checks (if you want to review Shirley's comments on this, they are on 15 September, 2000 on this same message board). I have a couple of other comments, but I suppose I must save them for later.
It's grim to think how from one transgression sprang so many woes, and the Maybrick misery keeps chugging along down the years. Even little Bobo Maybrick ended up poisoning himself.
regards,
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 22 January 2001 - 10:29 am | | Hi RJ,
Thanks for referring me to Shirley's post of 15 September, 2000, in which she stated: 'Albert paid about 300 [pounds] 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.' (my italics).
Any subsequent payments to Albert are therefore entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. I didn't suggest in my post that Albert 'truly paid for the testing of the watch.' All I said was that he did part initially 'with money he could probably ill-afford, to pay towards scientific reports which could catch him out'. Had the test results given the diary team real cause to suspect Albert was pulling a fast one, his £300 would have been money down the drain, surely? Yet he saw it as a worthwhile further investment, on top of the original purchase price. Was it a prediction based on good judgement or a lucky gamble?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 22 January 2001 - 05:46 pm | | Hi again RJ,
Your question to Shirley, regarding when Albert first asked questions about the watch’s history, is actually more interesting than I first thought. While no one should have missed the significance, if Albert was already asking questions prior to the date he claims to have first seen the scratches, I think the absence of any such questions until after the ‘discovery’ – assuming this can be confirmed – also tells us something. Did Albert present a faked watch to the world, without knowing anything about where it might have been prior to July 14th 1992, the date he purchased it from the jewellers shop? Supposing the history of its previous ownership had been sufficiently well-documented to show that Maybrick could never have had access to it? Did this potential mistake only occur to Albert later, causing him to make repeated trips back to the shop to check that he had no reasons to worry? If so, his luck saved him from any lack of foresight – again. The only other reason I can see for him to have ‘kept coming back’ would be out of genuine curiosity - one return visit should have been adequate if it was done purely for appearance’s sake.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
