Archive through February 03, 2001

** 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 February 03, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through February 03, 2001

Author: shirley harrison Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 04:34 am
Good morning RJ - incidentally, where are you? I assume you are in The States but I don't think I've ever heard. Yes - Albert's trips to Ron Murphy were immediately AFTER the discovery of the words in the watch. He was desperate to find out where the Murphy's bought the watch. As we know now it was sold originally to Suzanne Murphy's father (who is now incapable of talking - he has altzheimers - by a man with a Liverpool accent about 25 years ago. But there the trail infuriatingly goes cold. We are now trying to discover what was featured in The Antiques Road Show that prompted the conversation between Albert and his colleagues��just to see if there is any corroborative content about hallmarks. So far as Albert's payment for the watch is concerned��.Id prefer to explain the detail of what happened OFF the boards�simple because things are so easily misinterpreted and there are some legal complications. If you want to know more perhaps you can Email me on shirleyharrison1@hotmail.com What I can say here is that so far as Albert is concerned he did most definitely did pay for BOTH tests. Neither her nor I realised, until the publication of the revised paperback that we had each paid separately for the second . There seems to have been an uncorrected administrative mistake. Does this help?
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 09:07 am
Hi, Shirley, R.J., Caz, et al.: I rather think that Albert Johnson's visits to Ron Murphy are an indication of his innocence than of his possible complicity in any hoax to create the "Ripper engravings" in the watch. Although I find Shirley's characterization of Johnson rather syrupy when she calls him a "decent and sincere gentleman" (Harrison, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Hyperion first edition hardback, 1993, p. 202) (sorry Shirley!), I think his visits to the jeweller possibly show that he was simply curious about the watch's history once he had seen the engravings on the inside back cover and realized their possible meaning. His repeated visits to the extent that he became annoying to Ron and Suzanne Murphy, owners of the jewellers, to the extent that they offered to buy the watch back, appear to indicate to me that Johnson was innocent. Why attract such attention to yourself if you are part of a forgery scheme? In fact, Ronald Murphy's statement that he was aware of the scratches and had tried to buff them out before placing the watch in the shop window would seem to indicate that they already existed before Johnson ever came into possession of the timepiece (Harrison, Blake 1998 paperback edition, p. 241). There is though a little room for doubt that the scratches now apparent in the watch are the same as the ones Murphy tried to remove. Murphy's statement of October 20, 1993, as printed in Feldman, Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter (Virgin 1997 hardback, Appendix I, p. 361) contains the following statement, with emphasis added by me: "Having now seen the watch for first time since selling it, I am almost certain that the markings were present when the watch was sold but they were not markings that I would have taken notice of. I have been given the impression by certain people in the Press that there were engravings in it, which I had not noticed--but this is not the case." So it would seem from the "almost certain" that Murphy was not entirely sure that the engravings were exactly like those he had tried to buff out. On the other hand, countering the idea that skullduggery took place between the sale of the watch (July 1992) and Johnson contacting publisher Robert Smith about the engravings (June 1993) is that the engravings are faint and not overly obvious as to their meaning. One might think that a forger would want to make the engravings crystal clear. However, as we know, nothing is clear in the Maybrickian fog, is it? Best regards Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 11:05 am
Hi Chris, I mostly agree with you, except that I'm not sure why describing a gent simply as 'decent and sincere' should come across as syrupy. I've not yet heard of anyone who knows Albert and thinks differently. In Mr.Murphy's statement, he couldn't say I am 100% certain, because that would contradict what he said next, that 'they were not markings that I would have taken notice of'. I can imagine that a modern forger would want to make the marks faint to simulate age, but then he would have to leave them clear enough to attract some sort of attention in the first place, but then not so clear that Mr.Murphy would notice the difference in condition from when he sold the watch a year previously. I don't know how delicate or skillful (or lucky - again!) an exercise that would be. So, Chris, if Albert is innocent, any ideas who dunnit and when? And to think the diary author had the cheek to write 'My dear God my mind is in a fog'. What did he think he was doing to ours? Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 09:47 pm
Hi, Caz: Hmmmm.... I still think that Shirley's characterization of Albert Johnson as a "decent and sincere gentleman" is over the top and as I said, syrupy (that word again!), particularly since she has just been busy telling us that both she and Robert Smith feared that this call out of the blue from a man on Merseyside claiming to have Jack's watch was someone jumping on the bandwagon. I think, just as we are testing the stories of people involved in the Maybrick Diary and Watch Affair, it would be better to keep a bit of skepticism than to clasp Albert to one's bosom and declare him to be a "decent and sincere gentleman." Comprendé? Feldman says that when he met them in the mid-1990s, the difference between the fiftyish Albert and his brother, the late Robbie Johnson, a man in his forties, was like "chalk and cheese." The impression is that Robbie of the two of them may have been the guy on the make and the one with the shadier background, although Albert who we are told worked in security would surely know something about the criminal mind as well! If I am right that Albert's returning to the Murphys' jewellers shop time and again to check about the origins of the watch betokens that he is an innocent in this affair, which seems to be borne out additionally by the fact that he has paid for two rounds of tests on the watch, and that Ron Murphy was not totally sure that the markings in the watch were the same as he saw earlier, is it possible that someone, possibly Robbie Johnson, modified the markings perhaps unbeknownst to Albert about the time that the news surfaced on Merseyside that James Maybrick was going to be named as Jack the Ripper? I just think there is a possible window of opportunity in which the Maybrick/Ripper markings could have been added and were later seen either innocently or complicitly by Albert who then brought them to the attention of Robert Smith, Shirley Harrison, and the world at large. Chris George
Author: Lisa Muir Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 12:01 am
Just my tuppence, for what it's worth - the fact that Albert paid, twice, to have the watch analysed makes me suspicious. That's something I wouldn't do. I would offer it up for others to investigate. Unless, however, I expected a return on my investment, why would I pay cash up front? Is this just my feeling on the matter? And, while I understand Caz' comments, perhaps "decent and sincere..." is a little bit too much for me as well as for Chris. George.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 07:46 am
Hi All, We'll have to agree to differ over Shirley's use of words to describe Albert. Obviously her 'bandwagon' fears were expressed before she met the man, saw the watch or began investigating his story. I don't see what that has to do with her later impressions of Albert's character, once she came to know him, and found others who not only confirmed details of his testimony but agreed with her judgement of the man himself. Hi Lisa, What is it exactly that you find suspicious about Albert paying to have his watch analysed? Certainly, Albert may indeed be looking at a substantial return on his investment in the long-term, if he knows, or is as certain as he can be, that the scratches were not made after he purchased it in July 1992. I think I would. I think it depends how you look at it. If Albert is innocent, his behaviour, to me at least, becomes entirely reasonable and not in the least suspicious. Are you sure that it doesn't only look suspicious in the context of him being involved in this hoax? Does that question make sense? Hi Chris, Okay, let's examine the possibility of Albert being innocent. Shirley posted a while back that Albert replied, "absolutely not", when asked if Robbie could have rifled through his drawers and 'borrowed' the watch to add the markings. It would be interesting if Albert could tell us how he could be so sure. But, in any case, IMHO, the chances of it happening this way must be slight for another reason. Look again at the time-frame. Robbie learns about Maybrick being named the ripper, he helps himself to his brother's watch, makes the scratches - then what? Puts it back in the drawer, where it has been lying since its purchase, and where it might remain indefinitely, unless Robbie finds some pretext to draw Albert's attention to it? He needn't have worried, of course. Within what must have been literally days, and presumably without any coaxing or the use of telepathy, Albert was moved to take the watch out of its drawer and in to work, as a result of the discussion about the Antiques Roadshow, and lo - Robbie's extremely recent handiwork came to light. The coincidental timing of such events is twice as hard to swallow as before! No, I can't accept, from what I've heard so far, that Robbie, or anyone else, could have made those scratches after July 1992 without Albert knowing about it, and therefore being far from an innocent. But then, his repeated visits to the Murphys, and paying up front for a second test, after the first one failed to show up the recent shenanigans, must all have been a farce, and a risky one at that, without, as far as I can see, much point to any of it. Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 07:57 am
From Keith Skinner to RJ Palmer Dear RJ It was always my understanding that Albert - and particularly Robbie - Johnson continued returning to the Murphys after the scratches had been discovered and a link made to Maybrick, the Diary and JTR. Unfortunately, I do not think there is any documentary or evidential support to prove this was the case and all that remains is the word and testimony of Albert and the Murphys. Best Wishes Keith PS - Keep firing those questions in as they are all very relevant and extremely welcome.
Author: Lisa Muir Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 01:20 pm
Hi,Caz - Your question does make sense. I might be suspicious of Albert solely because his involvement has been questioned. I don't know. There just seems to be something amiss with the whole picture, to my eye.
Author: shirley harrison Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 04:18 pm
At the beginning of July last year I put a posting on the board which some people may not have seen (possibly even RJ) I repeat it now as I think it answers some of his questions and may in any case be worth reviewing. "Here are the facts as far as I have them. Robbie Johnson was in prison when the watch was bought by Albert. He was mixed up with drugs. His elder brother Albert said to me today "Robbie was into all sorts of dodgy things..he didn't lead a very good life..he was much younger than me and I didn't really know what he was up to but he was my brother and I loved him. All this is raking his death up again and thoroughly upsetting Valerie (Albert's wife ) and me." Robbie did not know about the scratches until AFTER Albert discovered them at the University where he worked. It is true that he got very over excited about it and no doubt realised that it could have commercial value. Albert gave Robbie a 25% share in the profits if at any time he sold the watch. I met Robbie twice or three times only and was extremely wary, whereas Albert is the salt of the earth, a thoroughly honourable man. I also interviewed Albert's former colleague and heard his version of events - independently supporting all that Albert told us about how he bought the watch. Sally Evemy and I met the owners of the shop where Albert bought the watch, Mr and Mrs Stuart - a pleasant,uncomplicated couple, who told us of its origins amongst a collection of gold jewelery rescued following the closure of Mrs Stuart's father's business in Lancaster. Robbie was in debt and unbeknown to everyone seems to have sold his share to a "friend". We have recently discovered that this "friend" paid for Robbie's body to be brought home from Spain after the "accident" which killed him. We don't know why and to be frank have not, so far, felt it necessary to probe further into Johnson family business or to explore the rumours surrounding Robbie's death. But if we have been naïve and Melvin or anyone else has genuine knowledge which IS relevant to the authenticity of the watch, perhaps it is he who should be telling us. Albert has offered to have the watch tested again at a different laboratory. But my own feeling is that this is a waste of his money since collecting reports from 'experts' can become a hobby with uncertain proof emerging. But surely even Melvin cannot think that this is the offer of a guilty man?" Am I wrong - but if Robbie was in prison at the time the Diary story broke in Liverpool, it must mean that he "stole"the watch from under Albert's nose and "forged" the watch some time before the newspaper stories. If so - how did he know of the Maybrick/Ripper connection? I am now trying to determine, from a former girl friend of Robbie, how long he was inside, because even if it were in only for a few months surely it makes the likliehood that he was involved even less likely? Or do you all believe Robbie forged the diary too? I have met him and I would say "not likely"/
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 26 January 2001 - 12:27 am
Hi Shirley: I don't believe there is necessarily any connection between the watch and the Diary other than the magic name, "Maybrick." I think the watch was an independent creation, whether the scratches were done recently or some time ago. Thanks for the additional information about Robbie Johnson and the news that you are trying to find out how long he was in prison. Best regards Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 26 January 2001 - 04:50 am
Hi All, So, Chris, do you now concede that when Albert took his watch in to work that day, it's pretty inconceivable that he didn't already know about the scratches and who made them, if it is indeed an independent modern creation? And how does that fit with his subsequent actions? Sorry to push you on this one, but you seemed to think a couple of days ago that Albert's visits to the jewellers and willingness to pay for forensic tests were signs of his innocence. But how then did the forger manipulate an innocent Albert and workmates into the 'discovery' situation? As Lisa says (although she is coming from a different perspective), 'There just seems to be something amiss with the whole picture...' Love, Caz
Author: shirley harrison Friday, 26 January 2001 - 12:13 pm
Chris - it is so frustrating to hear that the "watch was an independent creation". If so - by whom? And when? This is always the trouble those who dont believe in the possibility, however remote, that the watch (and/or the diary) could be genuine dont substantiate their ideas but expect me to do so. Chris - seriously - do you not find Melvins "evasion" over putting his cards on the table curious?
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 29 January 2001 - 01:13 am
To Shirley Harrison-- Hello. Since you were wondering, I live in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A--that vast clump of fir trees and mud puddles north of California. I find the 'Aigburth Mystery' an interesting topic in itself, and there has been a good deal in the debate over the Maybrick diary to keep me interested. It has certainly not been my intention here to state that all those who have argued that the diary is an old document are driven by 'incompetence, undue credulity, and vested interest' (to use Caz's phrase from her recent question to me). Indeed, in many instances, I think the 'pro-diary' arguments could be more accurately characterized as being overly subtle rather than incompetent or simple-minded. I have come to the opinion, however, that the diary is a recent forgery, and so is the watch. (Sorry). But I say this without any animosity. In fact, the most unpleasant part of the diary debate to me has been that, in arguing that the diary is a recent hoax, I am (indirectly at the very least) casting a shadow of suspicion on people who have in some instances become the friends and/or colleagues of posters on this board. This isn't something I really wish to do; but at times it becomes a very thin, almost invisible line between arguing 'hoax' in the abstract, and making unpleasant insinuations in the very concrete real world. I'm not sure how to resolve this. I only hope it might soften the blow by stating this outright. One mark in Albert's favor is that there is a long list of people who believe him to be honest & convincing. I think I was one of the people who first resurrected this abandoned topic by stating that one of the more puzzling aspects of the diary debate is that a diverse group of people --including Colin Wilson & Bill Waddell-- find Albert sincere and compelling. But all in all, there is a great deal about the discovery of the watch that I find troubling. It certainly doesn't help the diary cause that Paul Feldman came to the conclusion that Albert & Robbie were lying and that there were really two watches. (This theory doesn't make the least bit of sense, however. Why would the discovery of the Maybrick diary prompt Albert to reveal his long hidden secret-- as Feldman claims? And how would this theory fit with the fact that Johnson didn't ask the Murphys about the provenance of the '2nd' watch until after the Maybrick infomation was made public?). Yet (ironically perhaps) if one doesn't believe Feldman, one might well come to the conclusion that Albert is an innocent bystander--but this would leave the watch without the least bit of verifiable provenance, and an incredible 'fortuitous' bit of timing that is hard to swallow. As to Chris George's comment about the 'syrupy' characterization of Albert, I have mixed feelings, but understand what he means. From my view on the outside, the fact that the Johnsons hired a solicitor from the very beginning makes them look a little more savvy than home-spun. But I'd like to meet Mr. Johnson before making a final judgement. All the talk of London geography on the boards lately makes me a little nostalgic to see the city again. Maybe if Albert is to show his watch this summer (and you could announce the date in advance) I could be lucky enough to time a trip that would allow me to view it. (I would be very polite!!). RJ Palmer
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 29 January 2001 - 01:30 am
To Keith Skinner-- Hello. Thanks for the information about Albert's visit to the Murphy shop. By the way, I just recently found your post about Henry Winslade's address. Your response and good-natured humor made me laugh--thanks for that. (Chiswick/Chelsea --I figure this was just a matter of somebody's bad penmanship. I've noticed that scholarly types are often scribblers). I'll keep firing the hard questions, since you don't mind. Best wishes, RJP. PS. I bet you never thought that your research as a 'Ripperologist' would take you to Wyoming. I was born in the neighboring state of Montana, and know what it is like. My very belated but sincerest condolences for your stay there.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 29 January 2001 - 07:36 am
Morning RJ, I'll pass your message on to Keith as soon as poss. Having gone to school close to Chiswick, but supported Chelsea FC, I am quite disgusted with the A-Z lot for getting the two muddled up. :-) Love, Disgusted of Surrey PS And if Albert does make it to London, and you do too, I am praying it won't clash with the August holiday I've just booked. Sod's law tells me it probably will. :-(
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 08:21 am
Caz--hello. Thanks for passing along my message. Hmm. I wonder, has anyone developed a Sod's Law of Ripperology? I'll have to give that some thought. For the Maybrick Diary, I would suggest Zymurgy's First Law of Evolving System Dynamics: Once you open a can of worms, the only way to re-can them is to use a bigger can... Meanwhile, I'd like to 'push the envelope' a little in regards to a comment you made on the other Maybrick board. You stated "There are certain things about the modern (ie., forgery) story which refuse to add up unless you are into creative maths". I think my math is of the standard 2+2=4 variety, or, more to the point, if 3+3+M=8 then M=2. Perhaps you could give some examples of what you mean by 'creative maths'? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the main sticking point for you is the psychology of some of those involved., ie., the curious fact that Albert, Anne, etc. persist in their stories. You seem to accept at least some of the textual/scientific evidence that this is a recent hoax. Is this a fair assessment? Cheers, RJ Palmer.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 12:37 pm
Hi RJ and Caz: I think in terms of the Diary it is more a case of Pandora's Box, isn't it. In fact, I think on page ##** Feldy talks about a Pandora Maybrick who was related by blood to both James and Florence Maybrick, Albert Johnson, Anne Graham, and Sara Robertson. Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 01:59 pm
Gosh, you two, some food for thought. Since I've just had a stiff Harvey Wallbanger, and I'm about to check on hubby to see that he's not burning the bangers n mash (he usually sets the smoke alarm off whenever he dons the chef's hat and pinny), I'd better sleep on this one and post something tomorrow morning. My mum always said maths is a subject best tackled am rather than pm. As for Pandora Maybrick and her box, if it's all the same to you, Chris, I'd rather not go into that. See ya manana Love, Caz
Author: John Dixon Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 03:04 pm
Chris, I had a look at the Xmas passage & sure enough I have it marked as a problem but for different reasons to you ... sorry for the delay, but I have no simple reasonable explanation for this passage. As a somewhat depressing sidebar who saw the "Time Team" Sunday before last, investigating the faked Druid Well & Temple ? The mind boggles at the motivation for such a fraud. Knowing a little more about it might help understand the hows & whys of a Maybrick fake.
Author: stephen stanley Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 04:41 pm
I agree about the 'Time team'..to plant stuff in a way that only professionals could find...and very soon dismiss...beats me Steve S.
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 12:53 pm
Hi Steve and John: John, I would be interested in your thoughts about the Christmas passage in the Diary and would be glad to compare notes about it when you are ready. In terms of the Druidical well and temple hoax revealed on the recent BBC-TV "Time Team" program, I have thought for some time that the Diary may be less an attempt to make a bundle than to put one over on Ripperologists, so the Diary may bear that sort of resemblance to the faked Druidical well and temple in that both could have been a practical joke to fool the scholars. Although the Diary has not convinced (or should I say "hoodwinked"?) the entire Ripper community, it has certainly divided the community and some people with names, e.g., Colin Wilson and Melvyn Fairclough, are endorsing the Diary despite strong (if negative and circumstantial) evidence that it cannot be what it purports to be. Best regards Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 07:06 pm
Hi RJ, I did most of my thinking am but only just got the opportunity to post it very late pm. First of all, can I make it clear to the other readers (all two of �em!) that my comment about the modern story not adding up was deliberately worded to avoid �forgery�. I guess I can�t blame you for supplying the word yourself and making the assumption, but I really didn�t want, or intend to suggest, that the only people trying to manoeuvre the facts to fit were the modern forgery theorists. I can see problems that need confronting and overcoming on all sides, and I can�t understand why my rejection of one theory, as it stands at present should imply that I am accepting another, and that I haven�t been weighing up all the factors and considering all reasonable objections. The psychology of those involved is just one of a number of factors I�d rather not ignore, although I wouldn�t describe it as �the main sticking point� which prevents me from accepting a particular theory. But if we can accept that Albert is involved in an independent hoax, without having to face any reasonable objections, it obviously makes things very much simpler, in that we can lift Albert and his troublesome timepiece right out of the equation. But are the facts, aside from the psychology, so easy to brush aside? There is the support for the details of Albert�s discovery to consider, as well as the testimony of the jeweller who sold him the watch, who had no nasty surprises to deliver, either in the form of its previous history, or any recognition that it had undergone any marked change in condition or appearance since the day it passed from his hands into Albert�s. The �decent and sincere� bit could be considered less significant, even �syrupy� , if it wasn�t accompanied by such factors as these. But are we right or wrong to take character refs into consideration at all? I�m not sure about this one. I think on balance I�d prefer to be able to rely on the facts, and certainly wouldn�t accept character judgements alone, no matter how well I�ve come to know and trust those making them. But, judging by some of the comments made about Robbie, Mike and Anne, to support the arguments for a modern hoax, I�m sure there are those who wouldn�t hesitate to use a bad one against Albert in the same way, if only it existed. So I�m not sure one can have it both ways. When it comes to the textual/scientific evidence, I do accept that some of it appears to point to a recent hoax, although much of it could also apply to an old hoax. The coincidences of �tin match box empty� and there being two �o costly�� quotes under Mike�s roof at the same time � one in the Sphere book, t�other in the diary � I would certainly list as reasonable objections. But even these oddities have to be considered in conjunction with everything else that we know or can ascertain about Mike and Anne and the modern story. Unlikely coincidences, unhappy or happy, depending on which way you look at it, are part and parcel of all the diary/watch theories. In accepting one theory, you have to live with all its resident coincidences. As for the science, I have made no secret of the fact that it has me baffled. But since the specialists themselves are divided or unsure, who is really qualified to judge which expert opinion should take precedence? IMHO, the science has to take its place for now alongside all other objections I have to accepting a particular theory. Love, Caz
Author: Scott Nelson Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 12:14 am
Hi Caz, There aren't two readers looking on this particular board, there's probably hundreds of us who are absolutely fascinated by the diary mystery and read this board on a daily basis (or whenever we can!). You and the hand-full of contributors pursuing this great mystery keep us informed by collection of first-hand information and for that we are grateful to you all!!! I've said it before, but I'll reiterate that I think the current diary is based on an old forgery, but it has been coloured with modern dressing and put in a 'new' binding complete with new text. Carry on!!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 05:52 am
Hi Scotty, Thanks for the encouragement. It's good to know that others share my own desire to get to the bottom of things. Interesting theory of yours. But who do you think could have done the colouring and dressing, and why give it to Mike to dispose of apparently as he thought fit? I also quite like the idea that it was all done about the same time as the centenary of the murders, to give the subject a shake-up and get crusty Ripperologists hopping up and down in a right old state. Do you think the original forgery could have been written in the pages which were torn out? And why does it start half-way through an entry? I've always wondered about that. Love, Caz
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 06:38 am
Hi Caz! Sorry to butt in, but: I've always viewed the "starting in the middle of an entry" thing with some suspicion. Whilst it's not unreasonable to assume that a real diary with missing pages might start this way (if not written in a purpose-made book with dated pages), the fact is that the narrative nonetheless starts right there on the "first" page, and, as somebody else pointed out a while back, goes on to give almost a perfect "scene-setting" just as one would expect to find in a fictitious exposition - introduction to place, people etc. It is this that leads me to suspect that the incomplete entry is merely a device to discourage questions about the contents of the previous pages; if what we now have starts in this way, then surely the missing pages must have contained diary entries too (rather than photographs or suchlike). A geniune article, however, might reasonably be expected to start at a more "random" point in the story. All the Best Guy
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 08:06 am
Well, one thing about it, as each day passes, the older the forgery gets. (Hello All) I've said this before, but under ultraviolet light Rendell discovered that the last 'torn out' page (ie., the one next to the first page of the diary) held what was most probably a photograph...the size commonly used during the era between the two World Wars. Clearly the forgers would have had to remove these in order to use the scrap book. It is my opinion that in order make the missing pages seem less suspicious, the forgers started the first entry in mid-sentence, to appear as though it is a continuance of what is missing. This is obvious enough. But clearly the first page of the diary is in reality the 'first page'...it sets the stage, drops the names, and boldly announces 'I took refreshment at the Poste House it was there that I finally decided London it shall be.' This alone is enough to create immediate suspicion, isn't it? By the way, Caz, thanks for your response yesterday. If you don't mind, I'll make a few comments in a day or two. My one immediate thought is that I really don't feel as though the forensic evidence is particularly divided. I think the majority of the 'specialists' agree that the diary is a recent hoax. As for Dr. Turgoose's analysis of the watch, I think it ultimately only shows that the superficial scatches are on top of the Ripper 'engravings'. I can't really see how one can give a date to a scratch in metal. Melvin Harris's objections seems rather damning (to me at least) that there is no reason why there would be such wear on the inside back cover of a watch, unless, perhaps, they were 'recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing' to use Dr. Turgoose's phrase. But, of course, there is some dispute over how difficult this would be. Best wishes, RJP
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 08:18 am
Had I not forged ahead (wrong words perhaps!) with all undue idiocy after reading Caz's post, I would have seen that I was merely repeating Mr. Hatton's point. But it is a good one, I think.
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 08:50 am
No worries, RJ. It's nice to have the back-up! All the Best Guy
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 11:10 am
Hi, all: Scott Nelson stated, "I think the current diary is based on an old forgery, but it has been coloured with modern dressing and put in a 'new' binding complete with new text." Scott, I strongly disagree. I think the matter of the missing first pages of the book with the apparent abrupt beginning to a narrative that, suspiciously, has all the elements to set the scene for the story make for a very strong argument that the only forgery is the one we have under consideration (give or take the engravings in the watch). That is, there was no version of the Diary beforehand unless it existed on computer diskette or was written out longhand before it was written into the pages of the book. Combine this with the ink blots and the various scribblings throughout and I think it is clear that the composer of the Diary wished us to think it was written by Maybrick. In his confession of January 5, 1995, available under Maybrick in the suspects pages of the Casebook, Micahel Barrett's explanation of how the book was obtained and doctored by him to look like an even older book sounds authentic to me. Barrett states that he bought a photo album along with an old compass at the end of January 1990 at the auctioneers, Outhwaite & Litherland. It was, he says, "a photograph Album which contained approximately . . . 125 pages of phootgraphs [sic]. They were old photographs and they were all to do with teh [sic] 1914/1918 1st World War. . . "When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out. "I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages. "I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife. "This last 64 pages inside the Album which Anne and I decided would be the Diary. . . ." He goes on to say that he dictated the text of the Diary to his then wife Anne Barrett (now Anne Graham). Shirley Harrison maintains that Barrett has discredited himself but in the very contradictory Maybrick world, I think all of this sounds authentic and reasonable, a lot more genuine sounding than other aspects of the Maybrick saga. The confession includes the admission that Barrett used his word processor in the composition of the Diary, and of course Scotland Yard found the text of the Diary suspiciously on the Barretts' computer. Best regards Chris George
Author: shirley harrison Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 02:38 pm
Chris....I am planning a proper entry for the next few days relating to the timing (correct word!) of the watch and Robbie Johnson's alleged role.. But I must respond to the auction story ......do you not recall that Outhwaite and Litherland have categorically denied in writing that such an auction took place. And if you had heard as many of Mike Barrett's incredible stories as I have (including a graphic account of the death of his father...sob sob...long before the old man actually died) you would regard ANYTHING Mike says with suspicion. He is, sadly, a consumate bender of the truth...a fantasist par excellence.
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 05:20 pm
Hi Shirley: Thanks for your response. I have noted that in the latest edition of your book you discount Mike as being unreliable. His account of the forgery scheme though is very detailed whereas Anne by contrast gives us a very sketchy story about the origins of the Diary, that she first saw it in 1968-9, that her father Billy Graham got it in 1950 and so on. What do you have to say to Barrett's claim that the opening pages of the scrapbook were cut out using a Stanley knife? Has any testing been done to find out what type of implement was used to cut out these pages? What about Mike's claim that "I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife." Is there such a mark? Is it possible that Outhwaite and Litherland might be wrong when they "denied in writing that such an auction took place" that involved the sale of a period scrapbook and a compass? I would just say that we have here a document with quite a number of very suspicious things about it and that the scenario that Mike has presented seems more plausible than the one that the document is decades old or even original to James Maybrick. I am not discounting the latter being the case, but it cannot be true as you and Feldy currently seem to hypothesize that it came through a number of unproven multiple lines of provenance, i.e., Anne through her family as a descendent of Florence Maybrick, Grannie Formby from Alice Yapp, electricians who worked at Battlecrease mansion, etc., etc. One other thing, you mention in your Blake edition (p. 283-4) the matter of Mike Barrett being given by the publisher copies of the Sphere book containing the Crashaw quote as part of an effort by him to raise money for the fund to help the victims of the football disaster at Hillsborough. He is quoted as saying (p. 283) that this was "After the Hillsborough disaster in 1987. . ." However, the Hillsborough disaster occurred on April 15, 1989 not in 1987. Does that change anything? Best regards Chris George
Author: Scott Nelson Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 07:17 pm
(grumble, grumble)...Every time I get on this Board, I have problems with interpretation. Hi Chris, I was mearly suggesting that the current diary specimen may have been based on an older, unknown document. Bad choice of words on my part, modern dressing, new binding, new text. Mike Barrett, or whomever, could have done or confessed to doing anything to alter the present diary, but that doesn't mean he or someone else couldn't have borrowed text from another source that attempted to link Maybrick to the Ripper crimes.
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 07:37 pm
Hi Scott: I know exactly what you meant. I don't agree with you however. I don't believe the Diary is based on any previous document except perhaps notes or a computer prototype that the forger used. There was no prior "Diary"--this is it. Chris
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 02 February 2001 - 09:35 am
Hi All, Hi Guy, RJ, I am grateful for your views on the missing pages, and why you think the diary starts the way it does. What I�d really like to know, as usual, is how you feel this slots into the modern story. RJ, Dr. Turgoose was willing to stick his neck out and give a considered opinion that �the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years and possibly much longer�, although he did qualify this by stating that �any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and, to some extent must remain speculation�, mentioning that �the actual age would depend on the cleaning and polishing regime employed.� Dr. T is evidently not your average specialist who tends to err on the frustratingly non-committal side, otherwise he might have restricted himself to saying something more along the lines of your own opinion, such as, �It is not generally possible to give a date to a scratch in metal, however, it is not inconceivable that the engravings date back�..etc etc.� I don�t know much about these things but, to be fair, perhaps we ought to at least expand slightly on the quote you chose from the report. After stating that the engravings �could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing�, Dr. T added: �but this would have been a complex multi-stage process using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing of artificial wearing stages.' I guess it comes down to how one assesses an individual�s expertise and willingness to make assertive statements in such a case. If he is only partly right, we still have to ask if the Johnsons had the expertise and opportunity to do this, and whether they knew what it took to get favourable test reports or trusted to luck. As for Melvin being unable to think of a reason why there would be signs of wear on the inside back cover of a watch, I guess it depends how many times this one has changed hands (sorry!) over the years. If Murphy noticed �the� scratches before selling it to Albert, and tried buffing them out - without it occurring to him to examine them more closely - then perhaps other owners/jewellers in the past have done exactly the same � we don�t know. I guess there aren�t too many other watches with deliberate scratch marks made on the inside back cover to make such comparisons. Hi Chris, You wrote: �The confession includes the admission that Barrett used his word processor in the composition of the Diary, and of course Scotland Yard found the text of the Diary suspiciously on the Barretts' computer.� I was under the impression, although I may be quite wrong, that what was on the Barretts� computer was simply the diary transcript, which Anne had typed up for Mike. I didn�t think she made a secret of this but, again, I may be wrong. But in any case, it turned out in the end not to be quite suspicious enough for Scotland Yard. Melvin Harris, in spite of his probing investigative skills, was forced to come to the unhappy conclusion that much of what Mike claimed in his January 5th 1995 �confession� couldn�t be substantiated. What he was left with was the Sphere book (with no firm dates to confirm that Mike either knew about the quote, or lodged the crucial evidence with his solicitor, until at least two months after his first confession in June 1994), and some as yet undisclosed evidence that both Mike and Anne were merely handlers/placers of a document forged by others. Other bits and pieces included Mike�s rather imaginative reasons for inclusions such as Mrs Ham(m)ersmith. Melvin, just like Shirley and others � but possibly more reluctantly, and not quite so quickly - sussed Mike out and realised he was probably pulling legs big-time with all his talk about the auction and what he did to prepare the album for his ghastly creation. And can�t you think of any more likely ways for Mike to arrive at his suggestion that the diary was "a photograph Album which contained approximately . . . 125 pages of phootgraphs [sic]. They were old photographs and they were all to do with teh [sic] 1914/1918 1st World War. . .�, other than that he was telling the truth? I guess I could think of a couple of reasonable ones if I used my vivid imagination or suspicious nature� Oh, by the way, you still haven�t told me how you think Albert could be innocent, yet the watch be a modern (ie post July 1992) fake. Or are you having second thoughts? And, if so, what are your latest thoughts on why Albert hasn�t cashed in, in view of the promising test results he appeared so keen to commission? He knows his run of luck will run out the moment Melvin produces the goods on the diary. So why hasn�t he taken the money on offer while he still has the chance? Everyone now knows about the controversy surrounding both diary and watch, so could a buyer seriously argue later that he had been mercilessly conned? Love, Caz
Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 02 February 2001 - 09:51 am
Caz - You asked: What I�d really like to know, as usual, is how you feel this slots into the modern story. For my part, I don't think the explanation suggested above for the way in which the "Diary" text starts "slots into" the "modern" story any better than the "old" one. All it does is add weight to the "forgery rather than real" argument. Now if we were to find the missing pages, scrutiny of their contents might yield some clues as the date of composition. Otherwise, we have to look elsewhere for evidence of the age of the text. All the Best Guy
Author: shirley harrison Friday, 02 February 2001 - 01:56 pm
quick note to RJ - I do NOT and never have linked myself to Paul Feldman's complex genealogy, For me the logical line is through Anne to Billy and Granny Formby back to Battlecrease. The Billy/Florence idea doesnt work for me at all. Ill come back on the stanley knife etc......I want to get the time line of events around the discovery of the watch absolutely straight and on the board asap. I am justing waiting to know when Robbie was inside and when he was released.
Author: shirley harrison Friday, 02 February 2001 - 01:57 pm
quick note to RJ - I do NOT and never have linked myself to Paul Feldman's complex genealogy, For me the logical line is through Anne to Billy and Granny Formby back to Battlecrease. The Billy/Florence idea doesnt work for me at all. Ill come back on the stanley knife etc......I want to get the time line of events around the discovery of the watch absolutely straight and on the board asap. I am justing waiting to know when Robbie was inside and when he was released.
Author: Stephen Powell Friday, 02 February 2001 - 11:04 pm
hello everyone, I have finally contacted an old friend,who also knew about 'The Diary & the Nurse in Australia' this old friend has told me that she knows nothing of what I am talking about. She remembers nothing of our conversations all those years ago. I am very disappointed about this but it does not change my story,which is the truth. As for Donald Rumbleow,He obviously took our tour party to a dwelling that was remarkably like Kellys room. ok,so I have no-one to backup my story now.... But I met a nurse with the name of graham in 68/69 and she told me of a Diary of JTR. believe it or not.... I have a new e-mail address as posted in my profile. stay well. steve powell.
Author: John Dixon Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 05:44 am
Hi everyone, Good to see the debate rolling along so well. Chris would you e-mail to exchange info privately ... I wouldn't post here what I'm prepared to speculate in private. So I take it the majority view of doubters is that it is a modern fake ... Can someone tell decisively, is that pre or post 1988-1989? I'm interested in the majority view. We are all being distracted by endless variations on the theme. Lets settle on the most likely one. If a modern fake then doubters require the watch to be a later independant fake because Mike doesn't confess to it. Is that accurate? I'm only looking for the most consistent line of logic here. I think that this is the point for supporters start. Does Albert have the skill & the knowledge to doctor the watch in the time available? It seems to me if he spent that amount on a watch he does know something about them. But it seems lucky for him the watch is a Verity. If you depend on Mike's confessions then the watch becomes a stumbling block. ( Because of the watch testing & the concession above that there is only a small window of opportunity for Albert to set the watch up. ) Just trying to clarify the issues we should be examining. Cheers John good to see you back Scott
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 11:15 am
Caz--one quick point. (or maybe two). In regards to the Sphere book you write that there is 'no firm date to suggest that Mike either knew about the quote or lodged the crucial evidence with his solicitor, until at least two months after his confession'. Perhaps technically true. But to me the main point is that of all the people researching the diary, it was the allegedly incompetent Mike who discovered that mysterious and highly obscure 'O Costly' quote. This may well have been in a book that he and Anne already owned. (I believe it was. But does Anne deny that they owned the book?) It is still my thinking that this has to have been prior to Mike's confession, by the way. I can't believe (after reading the strange events of that summer) that Shirley Harrison would have been sending Mike to the library to research the diary's authenticity after the confession... that still makes no sense to me. Why would Shirley write that Mike owning a copy of the Sphere was 'suspicious' if he had made this revelation after his confession? If that was the case, it would have been dismissed as just another attempt by Mike to take credit for something he hadn't done! (Does this make sense?) As to Scotland Yard finding the text of the diary on the word processor, and this 'not being suspicious enough', etc. My knowledge of the Scotland Yard investigation is slight, but I believe that the Crown Prosecution Service was actually investigating whether the publishers of the book were involved in the forgery. They were cleared. There was, evidently, some evidence (unpublished) that the diary was a recent hoax, but the CIS were quoted as saying 'We have decided against a prosecution because there is not enough evidence to have a realistic prospect of getting a conviction.' It is still unclear to me whether or not the Yard investigation was aimed only at Smith Gryphon or whether they were interested in revealing the hoaxers themselves. Maybe someone could comment on this. Best wishes, RJP John--I think it is accurate to say that the majority of 'Ripperologists' think the diary was written post-1988. I doubt if very many of them base their beliefs on Mike's confession (I certianly don't). I can't see any logical or reasonable scenerio where the watch can be an old hoax (or real) if the diary is recent creation. The scratches on the watch, by the way, were revealed over time. The impression in Feldman's book is that the Maybrick connection was immediately recognized by Albert's workmates, and the diagram drawn up, but this evidently wasn't the case. Some of the scratches (including the name 'Maybrick' according to Albert) were discovered during the initial viewing of the watch, but Albert brought the watch back to work a 2nd time, after his workmate remembered the article in the newspapers.