|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 09, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through February 09, 2001
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 09:42 pm |        | Hi Caz,
You stated: "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...'"
To answer you, I find the whole matter mysterious. We do seem to have a seemingly innocent Albert, I have to concede that. But then I don't see the scratches in the watch as being the "confession" that Feldman and Harrison seemingly proclaim it to be. It is pretty crude handiwork, and faint at that. As I have mentioned, because of the difference in lettering between the watch and the Diary I don't necessarily see the same set of forgers as being involved. Possibly the watch predates the Diary? As I have stated, the name and the initials could be coincidence. Albert may be a hapless innocent, the scratches may not be what they appear to be, and James Maybrick may never have owned that watch.
Hi, Shirley:
One more question, Shirley, if you don't mind, what about Mike Barrett's claim that "inside the front cover [of the photograph album] 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." Is there any oily residue on the inside front cover of the photograph album that might be consistent with this story?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 06:44 pm | | FRESH FACTS ON THAT WATCH
The hoax watch has spawned its own batch of outlandish fallacies. From Mrs Harrison we have had constant assurances that Albert Johnson is a "decent and sincere man". In other words he could not possibly be party to a fraud. Yet she now admits that she kept silent about the character and criminal record of his brother, who was the prime mover behind pushing the watch. He also lied, about the scratches on the inside back of the watch. (see Feldman pages 33-4). Then, in her hardback, we have a statement from Robert Smith, and endorsed by her, which reads: "There were only two rational explanations. The watch was part of a recent conspiracy that produced both the diary and the watch; or I was looking at a second confession by James Maybrick that he was Jack the Ripper." But this stance was quite illogical since it excluded the rational position that the watch was an independent fake made by an opportunist who picked up the Maybrick/Ripper yarn from the Liverpool press.
From Caz we have the astonishing lines: "Apparently it would cost a 'modern' faker around £100,000 to get the same effect..." Where this quaint idea came from is a mystery. It is so out of touch with the facts that it reads like a leg-pull! The truth is that, given a suitable watch, the scratches could be created in under three minutes. The polishing out of the burrs could take as little as five minutes. The polishing grits could be bought for less than two pounds. Even different grades of emery paper could be used. But it does look as if some wire wool has been resorted to, as well!
(Rather than repeat the technical data that I have already put on screen I refer readers to my earlier postings which show why the watch scratches have never been shown to have been created prior to 1993.)
Since my earlier words were written I have secured copies of the FULL text of R.K. Wild's 1994 Forensic Reports on the watch. His work was said to have been completed and written up by 31st January 1994, but I now draw your attention to the odd fact that there were TWO versions of his findings. Version A is the product of either a manual or electric typewriter. Version B looks like the output from a daisy-wheel printer. Neither version carries a date, but a covering letter with version B is dated 9th March 1994, while version A carries a Fax date 8/11/94. Both versions contain paragraphs never disclosed by either Smith, Harrison or Feldman. These 'missing' words are wholly detrimental to their claims that the 'Maybrick' scratches are from the 19th century. You can now read the alarming bits never shown before.
Version B has a paragraph (fifth from the end) which reads:- "I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This could explain why the silver enrichment at the base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch surface and would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years."
The same paragraph in version A reads:- "I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This would suggest that the silver profile does form in a short period of time and that little can be said about the age of the scratches from this."
Now consider the last sentence in both versions. Version A concludes by stating:- "...LITTLE CAN BE SAID ABOUT THE AGE OF THE SCRATCHES FROM THIS." But version B concludes:- "THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ENGRAVING WAS CERTAINLY OLDER THAN TEN YEARS."
The conclusion in version A is valid and in line with the details of the rest of the report. It states that the scratches themselves offer no means of dating. But version B is invalid and represents a lapse from the clinical detachment that such testing demands. No scientist or analyst should ever take heed of any anecdotal material when reaching conclusions. In this case Dr Wild has not just been given an anecdote but a false date, since the admitted polishing by Mr Murphy took place in mid 1992, some eighteen months before Dr Wild ran his tests. So who gave him this false information? Mrs Harrison's paperback of 1994 gives the date of the polishing by Murphy correctly as 1992. Furthermore, how does Dr Wild know that the scratches mentioned by Murphy were ANYTHING to do with the Maybrick scratches? When originally interviewed, Mr Murphy said that he did not notice any initials or words whatsoever. And in a statement dated 20th Oct 1993 he said: "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." Yes, there were markings on that watch when owned by Murphy, but these were marks made by clumsy handling and watch repairers. Add to this the fact that Murphy was stating beyond doubt that he never took notice of ANY markings.
In later years the waters have become rather muddied. Tim Dundas, the horologist who repaired this watch for Murphy, has stated all along that there were no names or initials on the inside back of the watch when he handled it. Years later this provoked a very odd statement from Mr Murphy which ran:- "He was only asked to repair the movement, not clean the watch- he would not have needed to look inside the back at all. He would not have noticed the scratches, anyway. After all we tried to clean them and simply because they were so faint we didn't realise what they were."
That statement tells us a good deal about Mr Murphy. His original complete lack of knowledge, in time becomes transformed into part-knowledge! But even Feldman's book shows that Murphy made a number of conflicting statements about the watch. While Murphy's verdict on Mr Dundas shows that he hasn't a clue as to techniques used by a skilled horologist! To repair the movement Tim Dundas took the mechanism out of its case as a matter of course. As an horologist he has a love of clocks and watches and takes pleasure in inspecting the workmanship of any rare examples that reach his workbench. He inspects with magnifying devices, so when he says the names and initials were not there, he can be believed. By contrast Mr Murphy is simply a shopkeeper, running a shop that came to him as a result of his marriage to the former owner's daughter. When he says that he used jeweller's rouge to clean up scratches in the back, then he is saying that the scratches he worked on were quite minor surface blemishes, because that rouge is not used to take out deep scratches, neither does it leave scouring marks, as Mrs Harrison seems to think. It is fine for final polishing, but that is all.
Since there has been a great deal of talk and bamboozle centering on this watch it is curious that no Diary author ever took the obvious step of taking the watch along to Tim Dundas' workshop accompanied by the Press and neutral observers. And since Feldman is certain that there are TWO watches, it is equally curious that he never brought Dundas, Murphy and Albert together and asked the seller and the horologist to identify the watch as the one sent for repair in 1992. There will be some new parts in the watch worked on by Dundas, thus he is in the position to point to those parts and show them as new and bought in by him from his suppliers. As late as 9th August 1996 Feldman was urged to do this by Alan Cox, one of Albert's relatives. And Albert agreed to co-operate. Yet Feldman would not take part. The risk to his theory was far too great. But Alan Cox visited both Murphy and Dundas and came away convinced that:- "The watch came from Murphy's shop. And Dundas knew what he was talking about. He was a straight craftsman telling the truth."
There is little point in having Albert relate his tale once more. People who KNOW him report that he is often in an amiable fug; one put it "He's out to lunch far too much" This does not mean that drink makes him an evil customer or a grand liar. But it does mean that he was ripe for having a trick played on him. The very first newspaper report linking Maybrick and the Ripper appeared on 23 April 1993. Following that, it would have been an easy task for his worldly-wise brother to have laid hands on the watch for the short time needed to create the fakery. There is little point in any attempt by Albert to reject such a possibility. He simply doesn't know the ways of the deviant and criminal mentality. And his 'amiable fug' militates against his memory of when Robbie first knew of the watch and when Robbie could have had easy access to that watch. Apart from that, it is well known that family members fight hard against acceptance of any criminal activities of their relatives, even when the facts are beyond dispute.
What is unacceptable is the new slant being given by Mrs Harrison. Originally both she and Robert Smith claimed that the 'Maybrick' scratched in the watch "...was very similar to the known signature on his wedding certificate" But now Mrs Harrison is allowing Albert to protest that the Maybrick WILL had not been published when the watch scratches were first observed. And she herself has written "The signature...IS uncannily like that on the will and at the time the watch appeared neither of the Johnsons knew about the will" In other words a faker would have had to have seen that Will before forging his scratches. Dire nonsense! The easily available marriage certificate was the first thing any forger would think of, as did Smith and Harrison once upon a time.
To sum up, let me record that I have known of Robert Johnson's criminal record and drug addiction since 1993. But it was privileged information and I was not able to use it, though it is obviously of prime importance, despite Mrs Harrison's failure to grasp this fact. Now his relatives state that he was out of prison in April 1993, which puts him in the picture, but note, that if I had not pushed hard to get the Diary camp to own up, the truth about Robert would still have stayed hushed-up.
When I was buttonholed by Robert, in October 1993, I was struck by the way he repeatedly denounced the Diary as a forgery while claiming authenticity for the watch. But I have met this technique many times before. When dealing with the duplicity of mediums and 'psychics' I came to expect them to denounce their rivals as fakes while claiming honesty and trustworthiness for themselves alone! And there is a champion case of this technique in my book on the 'paranormal', where I show that George Foure, the outstanding campaigner against postage stamp fakers, was himself guilty of creating many completely bogus early issues.
As for the 'dating' of the watch scratches, the information now given, plus my prior postings, shows that nothing contradicts the sensible verdict that we are looking at a 1993 hoax. The scratches THEMSELVES cannot be dated. Dr Wild now concedes that. So everything rests on the 'dating' of fragments independent of the watch metal itself. In other words, a dating based on the corrosion of a one micron microscopic speck of an unspecified brass. But this is of no evidential value whatsoever. Such a dating must rest on the unproven and unproveable supposition that the brass speck was left by a pristine brass scriber and corroded in situ. Even so, the rate of corrosion of such a ultra-minute speck of brass cannot be gauged by any established scientific method, since any substances that came into contact with it are not a matter of record. Given the right conditions corrosion can take place within days and even minutes. On the other hand, if the scriber used was ALREADY corroded then any specks left by it would simply indicate the state of the scriber and nothing more. And there exists the further possibility that specks so tiny could easily have been lodged in a scratch by a cleaning mop or cloth. This position has now been clearly recognised by Dr Wild when we spoke this week. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 07:22 pm | | POSTSCRIPT
Though I have left this discussion board any false information planted here can expect to be refuted. For example, Mrs Harrison's words "...had I enough spare cash I might have been tempted to go for 'defamation'!" are without any mature and rational foundation. So I now invite her to place the defamatory words I am alleged to have used, on screen, so that you all can make a fair judgement. And I remind her that she is on very dangerous grounds, for the record shows that she was the first to suggest that the ink tests could have in some way been tampered with by me. For this malice she was well trounced by Dr Simpson (the correspondence has already appeared on screen)
On quite another tack we have the claim that the Cosgrave TV programme drew on material supplied by me, among others, when developing their Ripper profile. This is not so. My only meeting with the makers of this programme was a short one in which I made it plain that essential documents on D'Onston were still awaited (hospital and misplaced service records etc) thus an accurate assessment was out of the question. I was not present at any of the later group discussions and was never able to put any objections to any of the faulty ideas which were being advanced by others. Paul Begg can confirm this.
As for Ressler, the mobility factor in grading serial killers is just as I described it. Indeed Ressler is on record as saying: "The disorganised killer does not use a car". And his Ripper observations fail to command respect. He tells us that he "...visited the sites of the Ripper murders...and learned a lot about the murders." Among the places he claimed to have visited was "...a bar where he picked up some of his victims..." A bar? This I am sure will be news to anyone who knows the subject. He further states that "Based on this tour, I became convinced that the police had looked for the wrong set of suspects, concentrating their efforts on men of the upper classes, such as doctors, political figures and even a royal." I am certain that most people will be amazed to learn that a simple visit to 20th century Whitechapel will allow anyone to draw such conclusions. Even more amazing is that this 'instant expert' does not realise that the "political figures and ...a royal" that he talks of were never 19th century suspects but are found only in modern fiction! They will further be amazed to discover that the Ripper "...cut out the uteruses of many of his victims..." and placed Mary Kelly's ears and nose "...on a severed breast in a mockery of a face."
But accuracy is not Ressler's strong point. Even his American history is garbled, since he tells us that "In the 1880's in Boston, Jessie Pomeroy killed twenty-seven children both boys and girls." In fact Pomeroy's crimes ended in mid-1874 and he killed just THREE children, two boys and one girl. |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 07:33 pm | | CLAIMS OF OMNISCIENCE AFTER THE FACT
Since most prison sentences and jail terms are matters of public record, I am curious why you would feel that Robert's record (which you yourself say has vital bearing on the case) would be priviledged information. You seem to have lots of tidbits that can prove or disprove certain theories. Until you are willing to fully disclose what you know, your credibility is also to be questioned. I am not a big fan of people who say "I know I am right. I have proof " but then fail to disclose that proof until long after it is common knowledge. Saying you have always known of Robert's history doesn't mean a thing now does it? I am sure when the final evidence comes to light, proving once and for all that the Diary is a fake, you will be the first person in line, claiming to have known it all along. |
Author: shirley harrison
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 04:41 am | | From Melvin's "practised evader"
Melvin's usual forthright posting requires serious reading and must take time so I shall not respond now. But I will respond - apart from saying that I knew nothing of Robbie's prison record for a very long time. Paul Feldman did I believe.
Steve. I am really disappointed that you have already spoken to Vicki. I particularly suggested that you should leave the initial conversation to me (or to Keith Skinner) because I know from bitter experience how easy it is for evidence to be "contaminated". By asking the wrong question in the wrong way answers can be "fed" into the mind of the interviewee. I would say exactly the same had Vicki supported your story - even more so - because then we would have had no way of judging her veracity. A phone conversation between you and she would have been almost worthless. Second hand evidence, whatever it says is always dodgy. I had planned to record the first conversation with her - now, to be honest, I don't even know if she really exists |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 07:30 am | | Hi RJ,
I’ll leave it to Shirley to explain (although I thought she already had) why she was still trying to get Mike to research the diary and, in particular, the ‘o costly...’ quote after his initial confession in June 1994. My own interpretation is that this confession could not be taken seriously by those who had been investigating Mike, and it therefore makes sense to me that Shirley would continue working on him to find the truth. What makes less sense is why Mike would appear to be going along with Shirley’s suggestion to hunt down the quote, if he was trying to convince her, along with the rest of the world, that his confession was genuine. Why not just show her the quote in his Sphere book? He was playing an odd game here – trying to impress different people in different ways. If he wasn’t involved in the forgery, and he knew Shirley didn’t believe he was either, then his own continuing desire to find some answers, and impress her with his research skills along the way, might reasonably explain why his private actions didn’t appear to match his public statements. You wrote: ‘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 were the case, it would have been dismissed as just another attempt by Mike to take credit for something he hadn't done!’ Do you think Shirley was not being straight about the date of Mike’s revelation? Again, this is something for Shirley to address. My own thought is that Shirley probably did see it as exactly that: another attempt by Mike to take credit for something he hadn't done. But she could also see, just like everyone else, the incredible coincidence involved if this was the case. It seems like she’s in a no-win situation here. Had she dismissed this coincidence as ‘not in the least puzzling or suspicious’, how would people have reacted then? Are you saying that you yourself will not find it suspicious, if it can be confirmed that Mike’s revelation came after his confession?
Hi Chris,
I’m really struggling with your idea that the watch markings could possibly predate the diary’s creation. Someone had a reason for scratching at least the words ‘J Maybrick’ and ‘I am Jack’ in the back of a watch. Whatever that reason, the watch turned up in a jeweller’s shop in Wallasey, and was sold to local customer, Albert Johnson, in July 1992. Then someone else, in your scenario, at some point between 1987 and March 1992, without knowing of the watch’s existence, had a reason for producing a diary, using the very same idea of having Maybrick call himself Jack. I’m sorry, but I just can’t see this as a likely option.
I’m very glad to see Melvin back, but, from his statement that he has left this discussion board, it appears that he won’t be using it to respond to any questions put to him – only to refute false information. I find that sad but predictable.
There is a very simple and obvious way for Melvin to prove his point that, ‘given a suitable watch, the scratches could be created in under three minutes. The polishing out of the burrs could take as little as five minutes. The polishing grits could be bought for less than two pounds. Even different grades of emery paper could be used.’ Perhaps we could have a whip-round and get Melvin a watch to practise on, and pay for his handiwork to be tested. It’s so easy to make such pronouncements – it shouldn’t be that much harder to put them to the test and remove all lingering doubts. Or does everyone else agree with the expert of all experts on this one?
It seems clear Melvin believes Robbie faked the scratches in the watch, using Maybrick’s ‘easily available’ marriage certificate for guidance, and at some point between 23 April 1993 and the day Albert took the watch into work. I’d be interested to know how Melvin thinks the ‘trick’ worked. How exactly did Robbie set up his amiably fuggy brother to take the doctored watch from the drawer and into work, and find the scratches with his workmates, after opening the back up? Telepathy? No – for Melvin’s speculation to work, Robbie must have planted the whole suggestion in Albert’s mind, and it would surely not have taken him long to realise what was going on, even if he denied to others the possibility that his own brother could have played such a trick on him. So, why keep going back to the Murphys to ask questions, if he knew deep down who had all the answers? And if he was protecting Robbie out of family loyalty, why pay out for tests which could have exposed his own gullibility along with his brother’s guilt? Or does Melvin seriously believe that Albert could have entirely missed Robbie’s manipulation of the situation?
Once again, as is so often the case, Melvin has spoken with an expert, and gives us Dr. Wild’s latest opinions second-hand. I’d much prefer to see a full written statement by Dr. Wild, so we can judge for ourselves exactly what position has been ‘clearly recognised’ by him, and the context in which the conversation took place. For example, did Dr. Wild do all the talking, or were Melvin’s arguments being met with a vague “Yes, it’s possible, you could be right” kind of reply? I think we need to know more.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 11:01 am | | From Keith Skinner to Chris George
Dear Chris
In response to your posting of Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:10 am - as you now appear to be favouring Mike Barrett’s “authentic and reasonable” confession of January 5th 1995, are you therefore satisfied to leave it that the written text of the Diary is in Anne Graham’s handwriting? How do you equate this with Melvin Harris informing the board that Mike and Anne were simply placers of the Diary forged by others?
And I’m still at a complete loss to understand why you continue to discuss the authenticity of the Diary when Melvin Harris has it within his power to put an immediate end to the debate by revealing, publicly or privately, his conclusive evidence identifying and exposing all of the individuals who are meant to be involved with this alleged modern hoax? The only reply this question ever seems to elicit is a justification for Melvin Harris’s reasons to remain silent. Do you not want to see and end to this bitter and divisive controversy?
This week, on British television, we have another airing of ‘The Diary Of Jack The Ripper’ where Melvin Harris can be heard to state that the Diary was written by someone “most likely to have been schooled in the 1920s or 1930s”. How do you reconcile this assertion with Mike Barrett’s testimony? Because that is what I have to try and do until such time as Melvin’s evaluation can be positively supported or conclusively dismissed. You are an historian Chris. You deal with primary source material and the interpretation of evidence and facts. In the case of this document, the primary source material are the people who created it and their identities are known to Melvin Harris. Not only known, but he holds the indisputable proof of their complicity and has possessed this damning evidence for the past six years. Are you truly content to ignore, and by ignoring, condone, such an outrageous situation? Where is the sense in our continuing to exchange views, in a quest for the truth, when the truth is known to Melvin Harris?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 11:55 am | | Hi, all:
I will get to Keith's latest to me in a moment. First, I wanted to post the following:
Two definitions of jeweller's rouge:
"Also called plate powder. Trade term for ferric oxide, which is used in the polishing of gold and other precious metals." http://www.goldavenue.com/Info_site/in_glos/in_glos_jewellersrouge.html
"Red powdered haematite, iron(III) oxide, Fe2O3. It is a mild abrasive used in metal cleaners and polishes." (From A Dictionary of Science, Oxford University Press, © Market House Books Ltd 1999)
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/489445
From the second definition with its modifier "mild" we can see that the polishing scratches in the back of the watch are probably too major to have been caused by jeweller's rouge. The redoubtable Mr. Harris has hit the nail on the head in thinking that the polishing marks are not those likely to be caused by jeweller's rouge. More likely it is something more abrasive like a brillo pad or emory paper. Just the sort of thing that an amateur forger might use to make scratches in the metal of the watch appear aged. Bravo, Melvin, but please see below in my answer to Keith Skinner.
Hi, Keith:
Well, first of all, I have not seen any sample of Anne Graham's handwriting so I am in no position to know whether the writing in the Diary may be in her hand. Send me some and let me judge.
I agree that Melvin is not telling us all he knows. He reminds me of the Wizard in The Wizard of Oz hiding behind the curtain, pretending that he has the answers to all the questions and not revealing them. As I have said before, my hunch is that whatever "answers" Melvin holds do not answer all the questions about the forgery scheme involving the Diary and that is why he is reluctant to reveal them. He has gone out on a limb by saying he knows the three forgers but will not now reveal them lest he is wrong.
I still believe that Mike and Anne were more integrally involved in the scheme than Melvin admits. As Caz pointed out, Melvin in the interview I did with him for Ripper Notes himself said that Mike's ownership of the Sphere book containing the Crashaw poem with the line "O costly intercourse of death" is damning. Even Shirley in her latest Blake edition says she cannot explain how Mike came to own the Sphere book that contains the line in the Diary.
Keith, let me ask you something. Do you think that everything Mike has said about the forgery scheme is valueless? Do you think there is no grain of truth whatsoever in what he has said?
As you know, I have asked Shirley about a number of the points Mike brought up: 1) whether as Mike says a 'Stanley Knife' could have been used to remove the missing pages in the photograph album; 2) whether there is a kidney-shaped mark, just below the center of the inside the cover as Mike says he made with the knife; and 3) whether there is any oily residue consistent with linseed oil having been used to remove a makers stamp mark on the front cover.
Finally, I don't see the point of you or Shirley hammering away at me or anyone else about Melvin's evasiveness when Melvin is the person you need to address. As I mentioned earlier, my thought is that Melvin does not have the answers though he says he does.
Hi, Caz:
I am in as much of a fug about the watch as Melvin says Albert Johnson is. I am though prepared to accept Melvin's scenario that the watch is a quickly concocted forgery, probably by Robbie Johnson, to cash in on the April 1993 newspaper announcement that Maybrick was the Ripper. I am willing to see Albert as a dupe in the process or at least as Melvin hints a person who is likely to want to protect his family member if he knows that person produced the forgery.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 07:38 am | | Hi All,
Hi Chris,
There is a recurring question mark over which bits of people's stories we choose to accept or reject. If we can't believe most of Mike Barrett's testimony, can we believe any of it? In a similar way, if you can't accept some of the things Melvin asserts, how do you decide what else you can afford to accept?
For instance, I would like to see Dr. Wild get the chance to read and react to Melvin's recent post concerning his report(s) on the watch. How does Dr. Wild himself explain the existence of two differently-worded reports? Would his version of events be identical to Melvin's? Has he been fairly and faithfully represented, either from his own professional standpoint, or in relation to the ongoing investigation?
Since Melvin spoke to Dr. Wild only last week, and is obviously still as much on the case as ever, I'd like to know if he has been in touch recently with those London journalists, and what the latest position is regarding their continued silence.
Chris, you have openly stated that 'my hunch is that whatever "answers" Melvin holds do not answer all the questions about the forgery scheme involving the Diary and that is why he is reluctant to reveal them. He has gone out on a limb by saying he knows the three forgers but will not now reveal them lest he is wrong.'
Your implication is surely that you think Melvin has been dishonest, isn't it? If what you say is more than a hunch, he has an obligation to be big and brave enough to admit to the potential shortfalls in his claims to know who was involved, and in what capacity. But Melvin has not withdrawn or qualified those claims. By not doing so, he is continuing to let people believe he knows the truth but has legitimate reasons for not revealing it - in other words, you think he is practising a deception.
Are we not totally justified in asking him to substantiate all statements he now makes, which could possibly be based on similar shortfalls?
Love,
Caz |
Author: shirley harrison
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 09:01 am | | I am hopeful that readers of the boards - both silent and vocal - may appreciate now from the hectoring tone of Mr Harris's last post that there is such a personality gulf between us that any chance of discussing issues progressively seems nil. The intimidating loaded phrases he chooses to express his differences of opinion with others are unfortunate in the extreme.
He berates Paul Feldman for his unwillingness to go to Tim Dundas' workshop in 1996 because the "risk to his theory was far too great". Could Melvin's reluctance to meet me be based on similar motives?
I have no memory of the two Wild tests that he quotes in his posting and am utterly puzzled by the differences. I do have, of course, the original report of Jan 31st 1994. The quickest and. most efficient way to resolve this would be for me to see the two reports which Melvin has unearthed (where from?)but as I assume Melvin will not bring them to the table or send me a copy I shall reluctantly go back to primary sources because I sense Dr Wild, understandably, would prefer not to be involved..
Caz - I have already done what you suggest.
For the record I did NOT know of Robbie's prison record until much later. Paul Feldman did but I was never told. Nor was I the first to suggest a possible tampering with the ink capsules from America. This too was Paul Feldman…..I queried the suggestion (which I felt highly unlikely) with Dr Simpson of Analysis for Industry in Nov 1996 and had a perfectly reasonable rebuttal of any such possibility. I mentioned Paul's suspicion in my revised paperback.
In answer to Chris . I don't really understand your drift. Yes there are greasy patches on the diary inside cover, yes the pages could have been hacked out by a blade like a stanley knife and yes, there is a kidney shaped mark but Mike knew all this, so he could easily have woven the information in to support his confession. Remember Chris. This is the man who rang me AFTER his confession to tell me a Mrs Leadbetter had been to see him and was a descendent of Mrs Hammersmith……a long and convincing story except that Mrs Leadbetter did not ex ist. Of Course Outhwaite's could be wrong but on the whole I'd prefer to believe them (and not just because they are singing my tune).
I asked him to continue some extreemely limited research after the confession because he changed his story with each phone call - he did it, Anne did it - it was genuine......and he drove me nearly insane. How we survived that year I will never know. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 10:22 am | | Hi, Shirley:
Although you say you did not, I believe you must have caught my drift, because you have answered my questions! 
I am urging consideration that Mike's claims may not be totally valueless. I don't see why Anne's very nebulous claim of the Diary has been in her family for decades should be believed any more than Mike's claims. After all, they have both been proven to have lied. I would think the three points that you concede that Mike was right about, plus his ownership of the Sphere book containing the Crashaw poem with the line "O costly intercourse of death" -- which also happens to be in the Diary -- and the fact that the text of the Diary was on his computer, point very strongly toward his complicity in the fabrication of the Diary.
What though about my question about the Hillsborough football disaster having occurred not in 1987 as stated in your Blake edition but on April 15, 1989? How does that effect things? For one thing, if Mike only received a copy of the Sphere book from the publisher to help the disaster fund, he could not have had it earlier than late spring 1989 so the forgery (if such it is) likely took place between that time and early 1992.
Hi, Caz:
Caz, I am not contending that Melvin Harris "is practising a deception" -- I believe he is stating the truth as he sees it, in his usual blunt fashion. I do though believe that Melvin often overstates circumstances which lead to contradictions in his claims. A classic example of this is his statement that Anne and Mike were only placers but that Mike owned the Sphere book which opened at the very page which had the "O costly intercourse of death line" because of a binding defect. If Melvin is practicing a deception it is more likely self-deception than a willful attempt to deceive the rest of us.
Melvin may have some evidence that shows who the three forgers were but my feeling is that he does not have the full facts to enable him to state who they were, and that is why, for legal reasons or other reasons, he is not forthcoming. I agree that it is unfortunate that he cannot put before us the facts as he sees them even if they fall short of final proof. Or if not before us, then before Her Majesty's Prosecutor. Meanwhile, the Maybrick industry keeps rolling on and on . . . . . ££££££££££££$$$$$$$$$$$$$ . . . . .
Chris George |
Author: shirley harrison
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 11:10 am | | I have Dr Wild's permission to quote his Email received this afternoon. Chris.....oh dear we are still at cross purposes.....Im simply saying that could have USED his knowledge of the material diary when making his claim to have forged it...but it doesnt prove anything he was simply weaving the facts into a story. I agree there is not much more reason to believe Anne (except that I have spent a lot of time talking to her)and am inclined to think her version is nearer the truth. But I believe she knows more than we do.
I can understand if Melvin is self deluding - maybe we all are. But I dont understand rudeness.
And as for the $$$$$ (I havent got a pound sign in my machine)who is getting them I wonder!
Close
Copy of Email from Dr Wild in response to mine asking if he had done two reports. Unless we can see Melvin's copies I dont think we can pursue this further.
Shirley,
It does seem to rumble on doesn't it!
I have looked at my records and can find only one report. This report
was written on my PC and would have been printed out using a laser jet
printer, not a typwriter of any sort so I don't know what report(s) he
has.
I have found in my records a first draft of the report with the
relevant paragraph and conclusion
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten
years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside
surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of
removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not
from the base of the scratch.
This would suggest that the silver profile does form in a short period
of time and that little can be said about the age of the scratches from
this.
CONCLUSION
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would
appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done
recently and is probably greater than several tens of years old but it
is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
However my final report, issued with Report no IAC/93/013 is as below
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years
ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface
of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some
of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base
of the scratch. This could explain why the silver enrichment at the
base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch surface and
would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was
polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older
than ten years
CONCLUSION
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would
appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done
recently and is at least several tens of years old but it is not
possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
The conclusions are the same in both reports.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Bob
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:40:17 -0000 Shirley Harrison
wrote:
>
> |
Author: John Edwards
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 03:58 pm | | Alegria:
"Since most prison sentences and jail terms are matters of
public record, I am curious why you would feel that Robert's
record (which you yourself say has vital bearing on the
case) would be priviledged information."
I feel that I have to correct you here. In most US States, criminal records are indeed a matter of public record and you can buy fiche over the net which will enable you to see if your neighbour has served time as an axe murderer. However in the UK these records are most certainly not considered public records and are confidential. Searching for them is almost impossible especially after the passing of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) about 1986
John Edwards. |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 09:24 pm | | I stand corrected. I was unaware of the difference in laws. I have to admit that I am biased towards the American view. I want to know if I am living next door to an axe murderer. That way I can make sure my hatchet is sharper.
:-)
My point, however, remains. If you have privileged information, then it should remain COMPLETELY confidential. Spreading it about that you have such information but are unable to share it strenghthens neither your credibility now, nor in the future should the information become public knowledge. Kindergarten cookie rules apply: If you can't share what you have, don't let people know you have it. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 08:12 am | | Hi All,
The demolition jobs which Melvin does on anyone whose testimony or opinion does not fit with what he himself believes or wants to hear should make anyone with a serious interest in the subject wonder just how objective he really is - especially when combined with his inability to admit the possibility that he could ever be wrong. Self-deception can be, as Shirley suggests, part of the human condition, kicking in as dictated by all the circumstances, but I wonder what Melvin himself would think of the suggestion that he is a sufferer, along with all those he accuses of having 'flawed personalities'.
It would appear that Dr. Wild stands by his conclusions, and that much of the content of Melvin's post was based more on his penchant for putting the worst possible interpretation on the motives and competence of those involved than on any impartial search for the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All the talk about typewriters, daisy-wheel printers, versions A and B, together with all the implications of crucial wording and information being deliberately distorted or held back etc etc ad nauseam, makes me want to reach for the sick-bag, rather than cry "Bravo, Melvin!" Is it really just me?
Of course, Melvin had to subject poor Mr. Murphy to a similar hatchet job. We can't possibly have people believing he knows what he's talking about, can we? The jeweller's rouge he used to polish out the markings he saw (according to Melvin, 'these were marks made by clumsy handling and watch repairers') couldn't have worked, since he would presumably have registered surprise to see another lot there, even more pronounced, and looking like someone had taken a brillo pad to the surface, when Albert took it back to him. I'd be interested to know when Melvin examined the watch (when was this, by the way? Shirley? Anyone?), how he detected those 'clumsy handling and watch repairers'' marks underneath the ripper engravings and the subsequent 'brillo pad' treatment.
Hi Alegria,
The image of Melvin in the nursery, surrounded by kiddies saying "Show us your cookie, Mel", and Melvin replying "Shan't!" is one I am trying really really hard to pluck out. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 09:09 am | | Hi Caz:
I like the image of Melvin behind the curtain as the Wizard of Oz much better. Who then is Toto tugging at his pants cuff? Yip! Yip! Yip!
Love
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 12:01 pm | | Yuk, horrible thought - banish the thoughts banish them banish them ha ha ha,
Melvin can stay behind his curtain and keep his cookie covered too. Maybe we can do just as well without him and his little secrets. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 01:59 pm | | I for 1 take great pleasure in seeing Shirley & Melvin here at the same time ... & take no small credit for their having kissed & made-up. :-)
Pity about the quality of their contributions - Melvin essentially has supplied no new useful information & his mileage was really only available through Shirley's failure to supply complete information. ( something that Melvin is being harangued for here! Its not very complex to put the complete scientific reports on a site like this is it?)
Lets get back to relevant debate.
I'll put in my £10 ( or more if necessary ) Caz towards a watch & whatever a faker needs if we can find someone to try. I believe this would be a genuinely useful exercise & am not kidding at all. We would need to agree on an examiner & I'm sure there are other issues, but I am in!
Thanks Chris I think there are considerable difficulties with a post-89 diary & later watch fake ( particularly if it were intended to upset experts ) ... but I won't waste time on the obvious arguments. We need new material.
Cheers John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 04:56 pm | | Hi, John:
I agree wholeheartedly that we need new information. Please clarify though by post-89 do you mean post-1889 or post-1989? You might also expand on this statement if you would. I am also still interested in your ideas about the Christmas passages in the Diary about which you said you had some points to discuss other than the one I brought up.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 05:22 pm | | When you are all done raking Melvin Harris over the coals, would someone please present one single solitary shred of evidence that the diary pre dates 1988?
Best wishes,
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 06:49 am | | Hi All,
Well, I can hardly believe what I’m reading this morning!
Melvin puts up a post with so many loaded statements I’m surprised the board doesn’t sink under the weight, and within two days Shirley manages to get it to us from the horse’s mouth to set the record straight. Naturally, it would have been great if she could have joined us on site sooner, considering Melvin has found people willing to post his speculations here for years, but at least we are beginning to see how Melvin’s ‘typewritten daisy-wheeled’ versions (just how did he come by these curious documents?) compare with the genuine article. Do all his Wild statements made on Sunday reflect the accuracy and quality of the rest of his work, I have to ask? And yes, it would be ideal if Shirley could stop everything, now she is finally on the net, and supply us with complete information to order. Melvin, of course, was never expected to do so, so at least it won't come as a surprise or disappointment if he fails to come up with anything more useful.
Hi RJ,
I have been asking questions here for the past year about how a modern forgery scheme could have worked, given the people at the centre of the diary and watch stories. There has to be an explanation, but I am no nearer finding one which makes sense, all things considered. Why would I feel obliged to present even a shred of evidence for one hypothesis, in the course of questioning another? I just don’t know where the truth lies, RJ. In saying that I have little faith in the way the various arguments for evidence against Mike, Anne, Tony D, Albert and Robbie etc, have been put forward, I am not arguing that they must all therefore be innocent or that the artefacts must be old. People may see me as a diary ‘believer’, yet the most consistent feeling, from the start (which, if anything, is growing stronger) has been my scepticism regarding the Barretts' alleged involvement. If someone can come up with a scenario involving just one of the modern players, which hits the spot, I could rid myself of my disbelief and conform.
Until then, I remain your agnostiCaz. |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 08:01 am | | Hi All,
Bash Bash! Poor Melvin. His ears must be burning.
About the watch, and sorry to keep on carping (hee hee) about the damn thing, but I understand from a number of sources that this watch is a Lady's model. From the photos I have seen, it does seem to have engraving on the rim that suggests that this is the case.
Now, if it is such a model, then it is IMHO simply nonsense to suggest that James, a (relatively) rich Victorian Businessman would have carried it. On-going discussion, however, suggests otherwise. Can anyone definitely state that the watch is a man's model, or is that also a bone of contention?
I agree with Caz about the scenario concerning evidence against (and for) the diary. Although illness has prevented me from involving myself in the JTR-Maybrick stories for some little time, it does seem to be extremely difficult to decide anything on the basis of what is claimed from all sides. Now, neither Shirely nor Melvin are, in my opinion, in the slightest to be discredited. Even taking into account Melvin's .... forceful... methods of arguing, there is nothing inherently wrong in his basic arguements. That is, however, also valid for Shirely.
On the question of forgery, it is suprisingly easy to forge things materially. The difficult parts are to generate an acceptable pedigree and 'proof' of a consequent and logical existance. If I were to take an actual period watch and scratch on the inside "I am Jack", that would do little to convince anyone. If I find a period watch with scratches which I can modify, or even just interpret, to indicate some 'evidence' or other, that is another matter. I don't suggest that here is the case, just a possibility.
Greetings to all friends and Hello to all others
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 09:21 am | | Hi Bob,
Really? I thought it was pants on fire, not ears alight. ;-)
I don't think we need to speculate on whether James would ever have carried the watch in question, or even bought it for his own use. The questions for me are rather who could have had access to it, what our mystery engraver set out to achieve and whether he achieved it, and how he planned for the marks to be discovered.
Great to see you back, by the way. I'm trying to stay off the goose breast with honey and ginger. ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 11:16 am | | Hi Caz,
Melvin would, I suspect, prefer neither.
I still have thoughts about the watch, accepted that it can be argued that James would not have needed to carry/use/buy it at all. If Jackbrick wanted his scratches to be discovered why in a Lady's model? If he didn't, or didn't care, why not in his own watch? Why procure some obscure artifact for this purpose?.
Of course, it could have been just lying around, but even Maybrick was not that rich and watches were very expensive. If he had so much money that he could afford that?
As you say, we should question why someone should access/tamper with/engrave this watch. I do that in that I question how this person may have been thinking how Jackbrick would have been thinking, had he done it (ahem, know what I mean?).
I like breasts too, with or without honey and ginger, but this one is unfortunantly a bit scruffy.
Love,
Bob
XX |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 11:23 am | | | |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 11:46 am | | Hi Bob
A very quick thought in a very quick passing, but allowing for the briefest of moments that Maybrick was the murderer and the watch was indeed his (in the sense of being possessed by him, rather than being the one he used on a daily basis), is it not possible that the watch was Florence's and was used by James because he derived some perverse pleasure from inscribing it with the names of those he murdered in representation of Florence?
Just a passing thought.
Cheers |
Author: R Court
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 06:15 am | | Hi Paul,
Yes Sir, a good point. I did ponder this some time ago (I believe on the board) but such is not mentioned in the diary, which I would have expected if James had got a perverted kick from it as discussed.
All in all, that is where I personly have the greatest difficulty with the diary and Maybrick, although I admit to being a disbeliever from the start. The inconsequence, if James were Jack, that small details such as the taste of blood, the key etc. are included in the diary, but not other details that would have been at least as important, when not more, to a crazed Jackbrick.
That is, of course, no way conclusive, and such ponderings provide in no way reliable evidence, so or so.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:08 am | | Hi, Paul:
Yes, it might have been Florence Maybrick's pocket watch. Perhaps she would glance at it from time to time as she read lovingly to her dying husband at the side of his sickbed from the prayer book that was later acquired by W. T. Stead? But, if so, why would the pocket watch bear the prominent cypher monogram "J.O." on its outside cover? The monogram makes it seem more likely that the watch was owned by neither of the Maybricks, doesn't it?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R Court
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 09:41 am | | Hi CG,
I forgot (or didn't know, I forget) about the J.O.-engraving on the watch. This does play a role, of course, although Jackbrick could have aquired it later. I don't think he would have got it for Flo, though, without having the engraving changed. (A Ladies watch, second-hand, strange initials,... "Here you are, my dear wife, a present to you from me".....THWACK!)
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 10:16 am | | From Keith Skinner to Chris George
Dear Chris
Thank you very much for your response. The invitation to Melvin Harris to privately meet and reveal all, in front of an independent witness, will be publicly posted in the very near future.
In answer to your question about Mike Barrett, I have frequently said – and do so again – that in all of the hours I have spent talking with Barrett, he has always been at his strongest and most convincing when he adamantly insisted he was given the Diary by Tony Devereux. Which raises the vexed question of how the Diary came to be in Devereux’s possession? Everything which Mike Barrett has alleged about the “forgery scheme” has had to be tested and placed in historical context. Ownership of the Sphere volumes, forgotten about in his attic, is damning. If Melvin Harris would produce the evidence to prove that Mike entrusted the book with his solicitor well before he confessed to the hoax, then that would more or less wrap it up for me. Until such time as that happens, I have to continue to make sense of Mike’s actions, according to his then current girlfriend, (August/September 1994), as to why Mike retrieved the incriminating volume from her house, after having already discovered the source for the quote in Liverpool Library.
Incidentally, what aspect of the investigation and explanation of the ‘Red Diary’ scenario do you find unsatisfactory and unconvincing?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 10:18 am | | From Keith Skinner to RJ Palmer
Dear RJ
One piece of ‘evidence’ that the Diary pre-dates 1988 is Anne Graham’s testimony that she examined it circa 1968/1969. There is no evidential support for her testimony and because she is a self-confessed liar, having admitted to deceiving her husband, she is hauled over the coals and discredited. Interestingly, she rejects the unsubstantiated corroboration, emanating from Steve Powell in Australia, as to the Diary’s existence over 30 years ago. Presumably because she knows it wasn’t created until after 1988?
Melvin Harris, by scholarly analysis, has demonstrated how the Diary might have been put together after 1988. Not everybody agrees with his conclusions, yet Melvin possesses the conclusive proof to end this controversy, but chooses not to reveal it, claiming it is privileged information.
If you are content with that situation – fine. But I want the truth. And if the truth ultimately reveals that I have been ‘duped’ and am naïve and gullible in my beliefs; if whatever reputation I have built crashes as a result of Melvin’s evidence, then that is a risk I am prepared to take.
The bottom line, RJ, is that I firmly believe that Melvin Harris is misleading you and this board. Whether or not this is intentional, I don’t know. Similarly I was never sure whether Paul Feldman knowingly manipulated information to support his arguments. Chris George feels it may be self deception on Melvin’s part, but the end result is to blur the investigation by obfuscation, in much the same way as Feldman did by his over zealous crusade.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 10:20 am | | From Keith Skinner to Melvin Harris
“The easily available [Maybrick/Chandler] marriage certificate was the first thing any forger would think of…” (Melvin Harris: Feb 4th 2001)
Consistently, you postulate other peoples thought processes with such authority that some unsuspecting people may come away with the impression that your opinion is rooted in unquestionable truth. I’m sure you would not wish to give false or misleading information to this board, so could you just explain how easily available would it be to obtain a copy of the original Maybrick/Chandler marriage certificate? How accessible is this document? Work it through. Can you provide a step by step account of what Robbie Johnson would have done, upon his release from prison and within the time frame available, which is a mature reconstruction of his methodology and bears some resemblance to the reality of his world? I would appreciate a direct answer to this rather than employing Feldman tactics of blurring the issue. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 12:31 pm | | Dear Keith,
One could prepose the role of 'intermediarie(s)' between the author(s) and the Barrets; this notion, however, will involve either/or royalties
and, perhaps more importantly,loyalties ,being the motive force behind the 'veil of secrecy'?
Loyalty is something rather precious to us all, so why do you think Mike or Anne, et.al., will surrender this 'masked man' to you... or anyone else?
It is quite clear to me that the author of the Diary is more than capable of speaking for himself if he so chooses.The question that haunts my thoughts on the matter is, Why does he choose to remain silent ?
The world is literally at his feet!
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 12:51 pm | | Hi Chris and Bob
A top-hole point, though I was only trying to suggest that being in James Maybrick's possession didn't mean that he used the watch himself. But if one wanted to speculate on the JO, could the watch be an heirloom inheirted by Florence? Or maybe bought second-hand or even been a gift? |
Author: shirley harrison
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 02:35 pm | | | ......or the JO could have been added later - as Feldman suggests and for once I tend to agree - it is a possibility. I did another post earlier answering RJ but it seems to have got lost....Ill have another try! |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 02:45 pm | | Hi, Keith:
You asked "Incidentally, what aspect of the investigation and explanation of the ‘Red Diary’ scenario do you find unsatisfactory and unconvincing?"
I think just the fact that the Barretts needed a Victorian diary is highly damning. Why would this seemingly ordinary working class Liverpool couple (who, as far as I know, have never shown any interest in acquiring other period documents) need a Victorian diary if it was not tied up in the forgery scheme? That is, they bought it in order to enter the text of the "Ripper diary" in it, but it was found to be too small to write in and of 1891 vintage and therefore highly impractical to write entries for 1888-1889!!! I believe the Red Diary episode and the later appearance of the Diary that we know about, in the photograph album with missing early pages, shows that the Diary is a recent concoction not something that has been in the Graham/Barrett family for decades as Anne is now contending.
Another question: In regard to the missing pages, is there any evidence that the missing pages had anything written on them, i.e., a remnant of writing on the stubs of pages left in the album? Probably not, but I am not sure I have heard anyone say if there was, other than evidence that photographs were stuck on the missing pages as noted by Kenneth Rendell.
Finally, Keith, I am glad to hear you say that if a few more facts would fall into place, e.g, "If Melvin Harris would produce the evidence to prove that Mike entrusted the book with his solicitor well before he confessed to the hoax, then that would more or less wrap it up for me." (Emphasis added by me.)
I am also heartened that you say that, as you stated to R. J. Palmer, you suspected (though were never sure) that "Paul Feldman knowingly manipulated information to support his arguments." Also that you fault both Melvin Harris and Feldman for their over-zealous crusades, which have had "the end result. . . to blur the investigation by obfuscation. . . ."
Hi, Paul:
While I can see where you are coming from when you ask pose the questions whether the watch with "J.O." engraved on the cover could have been "an heirloom inherited by Florence? Or maybe bought second-hand or even been a gift?" this reminds me of your argument that the Poste House mentioned in the Diary may not be the famous and comparatively recently named drinking hole close to Whitechapel, Liverpool.
As we have said many times, the most likely explanations will most often be the most probable explanations, i.e., the Maybricks never owned the watch, and the forger goofed by putting the mention of Liverpool's Poste House in the Diary.
Hi, Keith and Paul:
All these unexplained circumstances connected to the Diary and Watch begin to add up to show that neither is likely what the proponents Maybrick theory maintain they are. To quote the Bard, "Something is rotten in Denmark."
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 03:19 pm | | I fully understand what you are saying, Chris, but the same sort of things happens with unquestionably genuine documents and historians argue endlessly over how someone who knew X could possibly have written Y. When a document is demonstrably true then explanations are legitimately advanced to explain inconsistencies. But if the document is questionable, such inconsistencies are waved around as evidence of forgery. But inconsistencies can exist in both.
What the document should contain is something that could not have existed at the time when the document was supposedly created. I think an example I once used was ‘cowabunga’, the favoured phrase of those teenage turtles which wouldn’t have been used in the 1880s. As for Poste House, if the pub’s name had been something else, like American Hotel or Frog and Firkin then I would agree that probability favours the modern establishment of that name, but ‘Poste House’ is different. As I have explained, many pubs and hotels had ordinary names like “George and the Dragon” but were called the poste house because they served as a stopping place for post carriages. For Maybrick to have colloquially referred to a local establishment as ‘the Post House’ would have been perfectly acceptable. To show that the diarist did not mean such an establishment but meant instead the recently named modern pub then one must rule out the former possibility, not merely assume it wrong. I mean, even if forged, the document could still reflect reality; there could have been a pub just around the corner from Maybrick’s office known locally as the Poste House. The forger could have known this and used it in his creation. Poste House could very probably and one might think almost certainly be a slip by the forger, but this is an assumption, not a fact, and research could show it completely wrong. I’d rather not make that sort of assumption if it is going to be used as evidence of forgery. |
Author: John Dixon
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 03:22 pm | | 2 questions come to me concerning the watch ...
To repeat an earlier question Is the watch a ladies watch as asserted by Shirley in the the Mammoth book of JtR? ... FC 9/3?
& Secondly Why are we assuming the "JO" was engraved before it came into Maybricks hands surely Feldmans suggestion that it occurred after COULD still apply.
Chris I can't beleive its a post 1989 fake intended to stir experts ( surely then the object would be to prove Maybrick was the killer not leave an error ridden unlikely Diary ; then an opportunist can along & in a month procured a local watch adding the necessary details luckily thinking to use an old tool which again luckily left old brass behind & successfully wearing the watch. ) Ameteurs seem more likely to me.
Although I really don't want to waste time on my speculation the paragraph 253 in between the Xmas passages appears to contain references to the November ball ( see Last Victim page 70 )i.e. the entry is not chronalogical & nor is there any reason for it to be so.
Cheers John |
Author: John Dixon
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 03:23 pm | | 2 questions come to me concerning the watch ...
To repeat an earlier question Is the watch a ladies watch as asserted by Shirley in the the Mammoth book of JtR? ... FC 9/3?
& Secondly Why are we assuming the "JO" was engraved before it came into Maybricks hands surely Feldmans suggestion that it occurred after COULD still apply.
Chris I can't believe its a post 1989 fake intended to stir experts ( surely then the object would be to prove Maybrick was the killer not leave an error ridden unlikely Diary ; then an opportunist can along & in a month procured a local watch adding the necessary details luckily thinking to use an old tool which again luckily left old brass behind & successfully wearing the watch. ) Amateurs seem more likely to me.
Although I really don't want to waste time on my speculation the paragraph 253 in between the Xmas passages appears to contain references to the November ball ( see Last Victim page 70 )i.e. the entry is not chronological & nor is there any reason for it to be so.
Cheers John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 05:35 pm | | Hello All.
The watch is circa 1846/47...a wee bit too old to be Florie's, just as it is too girlish to be Sir Jim's. But let me concede the point, and, for the case of argument, say it is an heirloom of Florie's. Why am I suppose to dismiss the idea as ludicrous that Robbie Johnson could have scratched the markings in the watch without Albert's knowledge --hoping that he would find them-- (this is not my theory, by the way) but, at the same time, I am now supposed to seriously entertain the idea that Sir Jim secretly tip-toed into Florie's bedroom after each murder and scratched the initials into the watch (for whatever obscure reason) and then hoped and prayed that his wife didn't find them? Isn't this much more improbable?
There is, of course, no evidence to link the watch to the marginal character John Over or anyone else connected to the Maybricks. Before Albert bought it, it was in the Murphy family for years. Besides, for the record, Mrs. John Over (Emma Parker) was replaced by Nurse Yapp, and had left the Maybrick household long before Sir Jim's alleged spree. It is a weak straw to grasp at, in my opinion.
Chris--Your comments about the red diary are sensible, and I agree with them. Here is something which might be worth considering. As Mark Angus pointed out in an article in The Criminologist (Spring 1995) the diary itself indicates that Sir Jim lugged it around with him on his missions to Whitechapel. "Middlesex Street that was a joke. The fools, several times they could have caught me if they had looked good and proper. My God am I not clever? Indeed I am. My head spins will somehow have to find the strength for my journey home. The devil take this city, it is too cold for me. Tomorrow I will make Lowry suffer. The thought will thrill me on my journey home." Beyond Angus's solid objection that it is 'beyond belief' that Maybrick would carry written evidence around with him, 'even (presumably) to the actual scene of a murder attempt', this also seems to indicate to me that the forgers most probably had already written the text of the diary before obtaining the old album in which it is now written. For the darned thing is rather large and cumbersome. I'm guessing that he/she/they must have imagined a more standard notebook variety of 'diary' for Sir Jim, but probably had to settle for the old clipping's album. Do we have on record anyone who attempted to buy a more suitable diary before Mike's initial trip to London? Indeed we have...Mike Barrett. I agree with you that this is 'damning' stuff. I can't get my mind around the argument that Mike would have bought the diary merely to prove that it could be done.
By the way, hasn't someone made the claim that the diary (ie., the album) is actually Edwardian?
I think the watch is too old to be Florie's, the album is too young to be Sir Jim's, and the ink is too fresh to be old.
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
|
|
|
|
