|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 17 February 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through 17 February 2002
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 04:37 am |        | Caz,
Pleased you agree with the continuity of ownership as lack of that alone reduces the chances of connecting the items to Maybrick to practically nil.
On 3rd May 1889 Maybrick is supposed to have in his possession a diary which is to be put in a place where it will be found.Also around that time he also had a watch,and both these items are to identify him as the Whitechapel murderer.No mention of where they will be placed,or if they are to be placed together,in fact no mention of the watch at all.However both appear over a hundred years later,the diary intact or seemingly so,but the watch altered by the removal or attemted removal of the evidence either by accident or design.
If we accept the view that Maybrick having recently inscribed the initials in the watch did not remove them,and the present owner did not remove them,then a third party must have done so,and that the watch was found by someone in the place where Maybrick placed it.
At this time the initials would have been as distinct as the day they were put there,or near so,being protected on the inside of the back cover.The solution to the greatest crime in England,yet it is ignored or misunderstood.Anyone believe that.
And so the watch is passed on,time and polishing erasing the wording untill such times as a microscope is needed to decipher the letters.How many polishings?.Can the experts tell us this.How many owners since Maybrick?.Can the believers tell us this?.Who was the first to open the back since Maybrick last closed it.Any ideas Caz,Peter.
The when ,the why ,the how,thats what we would all like to know.
H.Mann. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 06:20 am | | Hi John H,
You wrote:
‘But I did look through the two books regarding Tim Dundas, and boy is his testimony all over the map. I wouldn't try to hang on to anything he says too tightly…’
If I remember rightly, it is the testimony of Dundas that Melvin Harris, RJ and others, hang on to with a vice-like grip. Dundas was the person who was asked to overhaul the watch before it was put on sale by the jeweller who sold it to Albert. And Dundas said later that he didn’t see the marks while the watch was with him for servicing. Melvin rejects the jeweller’s testimony, although he stated he was almost certain the markings were there when he sold the watch, although he did say they weren’t markings he would have taken any notice of.
One man’s word against another - the first not noticing something, the second sure that he did.
Make of that what you will.
I’ll only comment on one of your points for the watch being a fake, mainly because I agree that it almost certainly is one.
‘3) It contains only the initials of the canonical 5, not the "Manchester victims".’
This is pretty meaningless IMHO because there is no reason why Jack should ever have known these victims’ names/initials if he had killed them but, for whatever reason, reports of their deaths had never made the newspapers.
It would have caused more raised eyebrows had the watch included the initials of a victim that the Maybrick of the diary categorically denied killing. The markings were made before a bandwagon forger could have known any such details from the diary text.
Hi Harry,
Yes, the chances of connecting the watch to Maybrick are slim indeed – nil if they aren’t connected. But the lack of known ownership history doesn’t alter those chances. It only means we don’t know where the watch has been since it was made in 1846. If we did know that, we might be in a position to eliminate Maybrick beyond all doubt as someone who could have had access to the watch at the time of the murders. The same goes for the album in which the diary has been written, if only someone were to come forward to say they recognise it as one they bought, owned or sold at some point.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 07:25 am | | Caz,
The testimony of Tim Dundas is "not one man's word against another" unless I seriously misread Feldman. (Which is possible, sorting the few grains of fact out of Feldman is painful and slow.)
Feldman uses Tim's testimony to promote his 2 watch theory. While TD apparently talks about AJs watch, his descriptions of it are not accurate. Feldman takes that to mean that there are 2 watches and that Albert bought a watch to cover his sinister Maybrick heritage. Uh huh.
At the very least he seems to be remembering a different watch than AJ has, so personally I'm not too inclined to rely on his testimony based on what I've heard so far.
"It would have caused more raised eyebrows had the watch included the initials of a victim that the Maybrick of the diary categorically denied killing."
Agreed, but it doesn't match the diary, and it does match what most any standard book on the subject would say. It's exactly what I would expect from a forgery.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 08:19 am | | Hi John,
Agreed about Feldy's two watch theory.
And of course you are correct. If Dundas is not even talking about the Maybrick watch, his testimony doesn't simply contradict the jeweller's, over whether the marks were there before Albert bought it or not. His testimony would be worthless as evidence of anything at all.
Sorry, you've lost me with the last bit.
In what way doesn't the watch 'match the diary'?
What would you have had a joint forger do? Invent two sets of unknown initials to represent the Manchester murders?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 09:21 am | | Caz,
"What would you have had a joint forger do? Invent two sets of unknown initials to represent the Manchester murders?"
Not necessarily. The forger of the diary didn't seem to care about the victims much at all.
However the watch seems intent on enumerating them. If the diary shows 7 deaths, and the watch reflects only 5, this seems to me to be a problem.
If the watch were genuine and the killer was actually intent for some reason on recording the victims, but he did not have their actual initials, I would expect a substitute mark. An X, a W for whore or something. Why would he shortchange himself?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 10:36 am | | Caz--"The markings were made before a bandwagon forger could have known any such details from the diary text."
Which, of course, would include the time when the existance of the Maybrick diary was known in the newspapers, but the book itself was not yet out on the market for the Manchester details to be known....which fits exactly with the watch being a very recent bandwagon forgery. So I don't see your point here.
"Also in Bournemouth, Albert’s wife held a decent magnifying glass for me to look at the inside of the watch where the scratches were meant to be. Others could just make them out when the light was exactly right, but try as I might I couldn’t see a thing – I’m not talking about making out actual initials or words – I couldn’t even see scratch marks, only a smooth gold surface."
Question: Does this suggest anything about the likeliness of Albert's co-workers 'accidently' noticing the markings and become intrigued enough to look at them under a microscope? Or is something wrong here? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 12:03 pm | | Hi RJ,
You took my remark out of context. I wrote:
It would have caused more raised eyebrows had the watch included the initials of a victim that the Maybrick of the diary categorically denied killing. The markings were made before a bandwagon forger could have known any such details from the diary text.
I wasn't talking about the Manchester murders at this point. To illustrate my point, if, for instance, the diary had turned out to read "the fools think I killed that Stride woman let them think it ha ha what do they know", the watch forger would have made a fatal error by including her initials simply because he plumped for the five canonicals. He was luckier than that, because the diary doesn't include any murders whose initials would have been known to the killer, other than the basic five.
But John makes a good point about expecting an X or W to denote the Manchester murders. But I guess the argument would then be that the Barretts and the Johnsons are suspected of cunning and dishonesty anyway, so they must have worked together on this hoax without outsiders knowing they even knew each other. We've seen a similar argument before where Mike and Gerard Kane were pushed together and called known associates, just because each of them knew Devereux.
I wish I knew the answer to your very valid question about Albert's co-workers 'accidentally' noticing markings that I couldn't see, despite trying very hard, and becoming intrigued enough to look at them under a microscope.
All I can say is that I truly don't believe Albert knew about those markings when he took the watch into work that day. And even if he did, there is no evidence that it was Albert who first pointed them out to his colleagues. At best, all he could have done was hold them to the light as best he could and wait for one of them to notice and say something about them.
And if that's the case, I see little or no difference between the likelihood of that happening and Albert holding the watch to the light in all innocence and one of them noticing the marks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 02:16 pm | | "All I can say is that I truly don't believe Albert knew
about those markings when he took the watch into work that
day. And even if he did, there is no evidence that it was
Albert who first pointed them out to his colleagues. At
best, all he could have done was hold them to the light as
best he could and wait for one of them to notice and say
something about them."
Let me repeat from my previous watch post and this story is taken from Shirley's book:
"The watch is opened (as White says: "We could see the scratches but we couldn't make them out." Now although White says that "we" would take it over to the Science and Technology block, it is quite importantly Albert who comes back to the group and says: "It's just initials and there's a name - Maybrick - in it and there's also something about Jack." White gets the connnection and announces that the watch must be Jack the Ripper's because he has been reading the diary story in the Echo/Post. This of course dates the meeting to after 23rd April 1993 and probably very soon after this date. So if we believe the story that White tells, there's an indication that Albert may be "forcing" the watch and Maybrick connection on to his friends and it's not, as some would have it today an independent discovery of the scratches by someone other than Albert."
Now it may be a matter of faith that Albert did not know about the scratches and that it was one of his colleagues who pointed them out to him but this is not borne out in Shirley's book where it is quite clear that Albert is the one who goes to the S & T block and comes back with just the right amount of information to get his friend to make the connection. Now if the scratches that Mrs. Morris could not see at Bournemouth are in the same condition now as they were then, how could anyone other than the person who made them know that there would be something of interest if they shoved the watch under the microscope?
"And if that's the case, I see little or no difference
between the likelihood of that happening and Albert holding
the watch to the light in all innocence and one of them
noticing the marks." But if that happened and all that Mr White can say is that "We could see the scratches but we couldn't make them out." because the light was bad, then I can see no reason at all for "We" to go over to the S & T Block. Incidentally, no microscope is mentioned and the implication is just that they went somewhere to get better light Maybe it was nightime?) But of course we do know that these scratches are so faint that they can't even be seen in a good light: "Also in Bournemouth, Albert's wife held a decent
magnifying glass for me to look at the inside of the watch
where the scratches were meant to be. Others could just make
them out when the light was exactly right, but try as I
might I couldn't see a thing - I'm not talking about making
out actual initials or words - I couldn't even see scratch
marks, only a smooth gold surface."
So it would seem to this particular armchair theorist that the scratches can only be seen (note: "...I couldn't even see scratch
marks, only a smooth gold surface."above) if the viewer actually knows that they are there. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 05:55 pm | | John
Your points; My replies.
1) It's a woman's watch.
Big Deal.
2) The initials J.O.
John Over?
3) It contains only the initials of the canonical 5, not the "Manchester victims".
Caz answered this point. But let me go further, John. What would you have felt if there were seven sets of initials in there? Thought so ...
4) SKs rarely personify their victims in that fashion.
And your point is what? Let's have some evidence to back up this assertion please. Just because something is 'rare' doesn't mean that it is an impossibility.
5) Nor did the fictional James Maybrick of diary fame.
Exqueeze me? A baking powder? (Wayne's World).
6) The superficial surface scratches seem contrived to me. How would it get scratched that often?
'seem'? 'to me'? The scratches are there because somebody tried to polish out the JTR markings without realising what they were. End of story.
7) The watch was made in 1846, so why were all of the superficial scratches tested above the initials, etc? Some should predate the (cough) 1888 scratches if it was that prone to scratching.
See above. There was no need to polish the watch prior to James writing in it. Only after someone saw the markings in the watch was there a need to attempt to polish them out.
8) The timing of the appearance of the watch seems suspicious to me.
Wow! Columbo! Petrocelli! Dan Tanner! Watch this John: The timing of the appearance of the watch makes sense to me. So we cancel each other out, let's move on ...
9) The diary doesn't refer to the watch in any way.
And if it did? Seriously? You know damn well that if the diary referred to the watch then yourself, R.J., John O. etc would jump on that like manna from heaven, so please don't be surprised that the diary doesn't refer to the watch. All you have to know is that the markings were made in the watch before James died. Above and beyond that you have no idea when they were made. Maybe the majority of the diary had been completed before the markings were made in the watch. This is getting ridiculous, I'm actually sitting here at 10:45 p.m. trying to explain why the diarist doesn't mention the watch. I have no idea!!! He doesn't mention a lot of things.
10) The nature of the markings appear to me to be contrived in such a way to create a readily idetifiable "JtR" artifact. "I am Jack", "James Maybrick", and the initials? Jack didn't care who his victims were. "Maybrick" didn't either. So why the initials? C'mon...
Jack didn't care who his victims were? You know that for a fact? If I made a statement like that you just know Mr John Omlor would be tap tap tapping away. You need to read your source material more closely. It's 'J', not 'James'. Do I seriously need to come up with an explanation for the appearance of the initials in the watch in order to prove it genuine?
Really John, I expected better, Lord only knows why though.
At least you tried.
Regards
Peter.
P.S. Get that cough seen to.
And regards the two watches and what T.D. appears to be doing with them ...It's Tim's confusion, not mine. There were two watches. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 07:46 pm | | Peter,
John Over? Are you serious? Is this question of yours supposed to seriously imply that the initials on this watch might stand for John Over?
This is one of the most embarrassing moments in Paul Feldman's entire book. Not even he can bring himself to put forth the possibility as anything more than completely unfounded and unevidenced guesswork and as soap-opera ending rhetorical questions with nothing like any evidence behind them. And what it really is, of course, is simply an expression of his own sadly desperate desire for this stuff to be authentic at all costs and the lack of any evidence at all be damned.
My God, the John Over speculation on page 251 of Paul's book, couched in absolutely shameless rhetorical questions that have not an iota of evidence behind them anywhere is actually embarrassing. It's not only not worthy of any serious scholar or historian, this page is not worthy even of halfway serious consideration.
And then Paul has the temerity to imply, out of absolutely nothing at all, a sexual relationship between Emma Parker (Over's wife) and Maybrick in order to get the watch from his James to his JO! Read the leap on the bottom of page 245. It's priceless.
It's also shockingly bad scholarship and the purest expression of unfulfilled but desperate desire one can imagine. I had actually forgotten about this nonsense, but now I can't resist.
Everyone open your Feldman books to page 251 and see what takes the place of reason and scholarship in this investigation. You'll love it.
This is just the sort of thing on which the argument for authenticity all too often rests. Please notice it, everyone.
Now you have cheered me up, Peter. I'm actually smiling.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 03:55 am | | Hi Peter (Birchwood),
Since you are accusing Albert Johnson of knowing that the Maybrick marks were in the watch before he took it to work to show his colleagues, and therefore of being the forger, or in league with the forger(s), aren't you the one who has to prove it?
My faith in Albert innocently examining the watch with his colleagues, and one of them noticing the marks, followed by the suggestion that Albert look at them under the college microscope (or look at them in a better light in the - er - Science and Technology block?), is fine as it is thank you very much. I don't have to prove anything.
You wrote:
'But of course we do know that these scratches are so faint that they can't even be seen in a good light...'
That was just me. I have pointed out on two occasions now that others were able to make them out, despite their faintness. In fact, I don't recall anyone else saying they couldn't see anything when they looked for themselves. I simply made the point that they are nowhere near as clearly visible to the casual observer as some posters here had previously believed was the case.
Of course, it would be far better for a discussion like this if the people involved in it had taken the opportunity that was generously offered of seeing the watch for themselves and talking with its owner. This is normal and fair practice if the person is being accused of something underhand isn't it?
I think the discovery might have looked a bit more stage-managed if Albert had suggested one of his colleagues take the watch to the S & T block, feigning disinterest, or at least going accompanied so someone else could witness the discovery first-hand with Albert. But if the account you quote is accurate, it doesn't sound like that happened. Perhaps this simply makes Albert less cunning than others would be. He is also reluctant to cash in on his artefact, even though several of us in Bournemouth said he was mad not to sell it and live it up a little on the proceeds with his family.
I suppose that puts me in league with the forgers.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 10:47 am | | John Omlor
I knew you would catch on to my sense of humour one day!
You are absolutely right about Feldy's proposition of JO relating to John Over.
But, I think more than that, I was just trying to put forward the idea that the initials could stand for anything, they don't have to relate to James Maybrick.
I do think you and the others would have a problem in believing the watch if it had the initials JM on the front. I really believe that. If it was a forgery then that would have been the sensible thing for the forgers to do, get JM engraved on the outside case. It is perfectly possible to have one engraving removed and another added. So I wonder why they left JO on the front?
I ask that question, not to prove that because the forgers didn't do something then the watch must be genuine, but because I genuinely wonder why the 'forgers' show care and thought one minute and then complete abandonment the next.
Just my thoughts out loud.
Nice to see you laughing again John.
Take Care
Peter. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 02:03 pm | | "But if the account you
quote is accurate, it doesn't sound like that happened."
But this is Shirley Harrison's account and if it isn't accurate, then where are we? Albert's friends could see the scratches but couldn't make them out. The "We" mentioned took the watch over to the S&T block. Why? If you see miscellaneous scratches on an artifact that has to be over a hundred years old, do you automatically assume that there is a message there? So all we have mentioned in Shirley's book is that the "We" must be at least Albert Johnson (because p241 says "When Albert came back..." and presumably John White, because of the "we." Also, if somebody suggests that the scratches be looked at under the microscope, that is certainly not mentioned in my copy of Shirley's Blake edition. What you are thinking of is Feldman's version of events. Maybe we should ask who saw Albert first: Shirley or Feldman?
Did Albert go accompanied? As I said before, the indication is that at least one person, probably John White, went with him. But if that's so, why doesn't John White say that he too saw the scratches and read the crucial names? It's rather puzzling.
"I suppose that puts me in league with the forgers." No, just more trusting. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 04:29 am | | The diary says, it,the diary,will be put in a place where it will be found.I would presume that the watch also would be put in a place where it could be found,as it,like the diary,is a revelation of who the killer was.
Now the first person likely to search Maybrick's possessions would be his wife Florrie,and I'm sure had she found them,that evidence would have been brought forth in her defence.
Also the police,who may be thought of as more intelligent searchers,found neither item at the Maybrick residence.
Now you may answer that he could have put them anywhere,but obviously if they were to be found,they were put in a place which the writer expected to be searched.
During his lifetime he would have control over the safety of both,so it is probable that the finding would relate to a time after death,and since he would not know on the third of May when that would be,the likelyhood is that they were kept in his study.This is supposition based on a true document.
Of course neither was 'found'and an alternative is that they never existed,not in Maybrick's possession that is.
Peter,
Do you seriously believe that a person reading the inside cover would not understand what was there,or would not take steps to find out.Even so what would be the object of polishing out any markings,it was unlikely to effect the value.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 08:03 am | | Hi Harry,
My understanding was that Florie was more or less kept under house arrest as her husband lay dying, so could not have been the first person to search through his possessions.
This of course, if true, would leave our cunning forger plenty of opportunity to let his readers speculate about one of the less trustworthy members of, or visitors to, the Maybrick household rifling through stuff for evidence (like Florie's love letters for instance), or possibly redistributing stuff to manufacture evidence (like arsenic into hatboxes for another for instance), or even pinching stuff that could come in useful in the days, months or years to come. Blackmail springs to mind as an idea that someone could have had initially, but later abandoned.
Hi Peter,
Perhaps. But can you, with hand on heart, pretend to know that someone you don't know - have never even met - can't be trusted? You appear to be prepared to take the risk that you are very wrong about Albert. At least if I am wrong about him, it's based on my own personal judgement, and that of seemingly everyone else who knows him. And I can live with that.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 08:49 am | | Hi All,
Of course, if it was a forger, he has to write that bit about the diary being left to be found. It's an interesting thing. The diary is clearly written with an audience in mind. It's not really a private journal, with the writer speaking only to himself or to his conscience or to "dear diary." There are a number of places where the diarist is clearly addressing a future audience or readers, including that last page where he mentions the intended future of his book.
Now once the diarist/forger chose to make the diary not simply a personal journal of memories and thoughts, but a series of performances and poems designed in part to impress readers, they had to make it explicit just how the author is planning on it being read someday. So there can be no talk of plans to throw it into the fire when the end is near or other such nonsense. They have to create, dramatically, the possibility for us having it. And they can't go the fiction rout (like the end of 100 Years of Solitude, where everything in the world and history of the novel is destroyed in an apocalypse of decipherment and the reader is simply left to ponder the unsolvable paradox of how we have the damn book then) and count on the willing suspension of disbelief of their readers. No, they also want their reader to believe the real James wrote the book. Thus, they have to do the "I'm placing this where I know it will be found" thing and then hope that we come with up with a plausible explanation for why it wasn't "found" immediately upon James' death, in the investigation, and then used at his trial -- hope, that is, that we fill in the missing links that get it somehow from James's dying hands to Doreen's office in 1992. And, of course, that's just what some readers have been more than happy to do. Paul Feldman's book is filed with attempts to do this, one after the other, and as each of them fails to be supported by any evidence whatsoever, he throws out a new one. And Anne, of course, at one point started helping him.
The problem, needless to say, is that none of the stories told so far to fill in this history and provenance, none of the accounts of how the diary was "hidden" in a place it would be found, then not found immediately, then found somehow by someone, and then traveled to Mike Barrett's hands, none of those stories has ever had any evidence at all behind them. Not one piece. No one has ever been able to find even a trace of evidence that this book even existed before 1992.
I still think that might tell us something.
All the best,
--John
(It's sort of like that clause in the first sentence of Poe's Cask of Amontillado, where the speaker says, "you, who so well know the nature of my soul." Who the hell is he talking to? Not us, we've never met him before. A priest, in a confession? But he's not penitent, he's proud, bragging about how clever he is with his reverse psychology and all that. No. It's only at the end of the story, in an almost hidden passage about elapsed time, that we get a hint of how unreliable his boasting in this story really might be. For careful readers, it unsettles everything that has come before it.) |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 02:31 am | | Hi, all:
John Omlor wrote in part:
"Of course, if it was a forger, he has to write that bit about the diary being left to be found. . . Now once the diarist/forger chose to make the diary not simply a personal journal of memories and thoughts, but a series of performances and poems designed in part to impress readers, they have to make it explicit just how the author is planning on it being read someday. . . . They have to create, dramatically, the possibility for us having it. And they can't go the fiction rout. . . and count on the willing suspension of disbelief of their readers. No, they also want their reader to believe the real James wrote the book. Thus, they have to do the 'I'm placing this where I know it will be found' thing and then hope that we come with up with a plausible explanation for why it wasn't 'found' immediately upon James' death, in the investigation, and then used at his trial -- hope, that is, that we fill in the missing links that get it somehow from James's dying hands to Doreen's office in 1992. And, of course, that's just what some readers have been more than happy to do. Paul Feldman's book is filled with attempts to do this, one after the other, and as each of them fails to be supported by any evidence whatsoever, he throws out a new one. And Anne, of course, at one point started helping him."
I think it is also interesting that here the Diary saga somewhat parallels what has happened to the Ripper story. Here we are 114 years after the murders and we are seemingly no closer to knowing who the murderer was. We have reached the point because of the paucity of evidence and because of the putting forth of more and more ridiculous suspects, that the Ripper can be whomever you want. Lewis Carroll, Gladstone, Walter Sickert, Claude Conder, James Maybrick, anyone. In fact, after the naming of Prince Eddy in the 1970s as a possible Ripper suspect it became pretty much open season to name anyone as the Ripper. This also I think gives us a clue to why Maybrick was named, that the door was open to such ideas both in the popular imagination and in reality. Someone contrived an opportunity to introduce the Liverpool cotton merchant as the Ripper because of this open season on naming suspects in the case. So Feldman's thrashing around for an explanation for the book's journey from Maybrick's hands to us parallels the more and more wild attempts to explain the murders by naming the Ripper.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 03:25 am | | Caz,
I do not see that house arrest would mean restricting her to one particular part of the house.The domestic staff would still be under her control,and visitors movements monitored,so the ability for anyone other than Florie to conduct a search would be limited.
Then of course there is the absurd situation that if indeed someone else did manage to come into possession of watch or diary,they would keep mum after the death of Maybrick.Blackmail would be out,and the notion the finder would not realise what the objects were about seems ridiculous.
They had to be found but they weren't,they were produced.Both are hoaxes,and anyone associated with their appearance must have some suspicion directed their way.
H.Mann. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 06:04 am | | Here are some comments from Shirley:
"Shirley Harrison, 15/9/2000
The facts about payments to Albert.
Albert paid about 300 for the first test of the watch.
He had no idea at this time if he would be paid anything at
all by us in London.
On November 3 1993 I paid him 1,000 pounds (not Doreen -
she is merely the agent who looks after my income and
expenses) for the use of the Manchester report, which was
his property, and as permission fees for the use of the
photographs.
On November 7th 1994, after publication of the paperback, I
paid Bristol University 587 pound 50p for their report and
on November 25th 1993 a further 2,000 pounds to Albert for
permission fees."
So unless I am reading this wrongly, Albert actually paid out £300 for the initial test. He got back £3,000 for "permissions" Shirley also paid Bristol Univ. directly for their report. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 07:03 am | | Hi, Harry:
Florie's own memoir and the various books on the Maybrick Case relate that she was kept incommunicado in her bedroom during James's last hours and she did not have command of the servants. Thereafter, she was in police custody. There thus seems to have been no opportunity for her to have riffled through James's belongings.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 11:11 am | | Florrie Maybrick...the Winnie Mandela of the 'pool !
Monty
 |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 05:38 pm | | Hi guys
The best thing I can think to say about the watch is that it doesn't leave us much to argue about by way of "text". That is to say, our decision as to whether or not it is genuine should be made according to the scientific experiments done on it.
What A.J. got for allowing Shirley access to the reports he had done on the watch is pretty much immaterial. The fact is that A.J. was prepared to pay out, up front and out of his own pocket, for tests to be done on a watch on which he could not be assured of the results.
Albert could not go and 'buy' a set of results. But the results that came back must have been far more impressive than he could have hoped for. Notwithstanding that there are various 'explanations' abounding as to the results of the tests done so far, it is entirely possible that, after the first set of tests done, the scratches in the watch could have been denounced as within recent years.
If Albert had forged the scratches then the results of the tests done are all the more remarkable.
If Albert didn't forge the scratches then he truly was taking a shot in the dark and showing remarkable belief in an artefact of which he had no way of knowing the provenance. Or did he?
The best piece of evidence for tracing the original owner of the watch (and therefore it's possible 'relation' to the Maybrick case) is the fact that it was a Lancaster Verity. If the original records of that company could be found then we would know who the watch was sold to.
I wonder what the chances of research being done in that area are?
Regards
Peter.
P.S. Caz - Wasn't Will brilliant? Can't wait for the album and single. Have thought about going to see him at the M.E.N. in March, but £25 for a two song performance is a bit rich, don't you think? |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 05:47 am | | Chris,
You are quite correct in what you say.However it was some days between the death of James and the arrest of Florie,and though it is reported that she was confined to bed due to ill health on those days,it cannot be stated definately that she did not have opportunity,or that she was not well enough to have made at least a superficial search.
Still the problem remains.Why was neither the watch or diary discovered if placed in a location where they would be found.If genuine,who found them and under what circumstances.Why attempt to obliterare one's reference to Maybrick being JTR,yet allow the other to remain intact.
Two different hiding places and two different finders?.Itwould seem so.
Peter,if the watch was one of a kind,or was otherwise marked or numbered,your idea might have positive results,but is'nt that what the believers should be doing.Would they admitto a negative result?.
H.Mann. |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 07:14 am | | Peter,
Wow. I just saw your 10 replies. It'll take me a while to wade through all that. But in the meantime Peter I really suggest you re-read Feldman regarding the testimony of Tim Dundas. You can't use his testimony to support the two watch theory and try to use him to support your "he tried to polish out the scratches" theory. It's simply broken.
Also, you might want to reread Dr. Turgoose report. The scratches were not caused by polishing. Dr. Turgoose clearly saw signs of repeated weathering and polishing. Not a bunches of scratches caused by polishing. That is not consistant with the evidence.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 04:00 pm | | Hiya John.
I only have two minutes, there's a Dostoevsky film coming on BBC2 and I'm in a hurry.
In short, I can't be bothered picking up PHF's book to read Tim Dundas' evidence again.
As I remember it, Tim or the geezer who "sold" the watch to Albert claim to have attempted to polish out some scratches. They claim to have polished out the scratches in the watch that they sold to Albert. At no time did they say that they knew the scratches were words, let alone what they said.
PHF believes that the watch Tim Dundas saw wasn't the Maybrick watch. Therefore if Tim Dundas recalls polishing out some scratches then he is referring to some different scratches in a different watch.
I'll do the research sometime soon. But I do genuinely believe that there are two watches.
Gotta go, Dostoevsky and his chums are coming on.
Cheers
Peter |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:26 am | | Hi Peter,
Tim Dundas said he didn't see the Maybrick scratches in the watch that he was asked to service by the jeweller who later had Albert as a customer. We don't know if this is because Dundas never looked closely enough in the right place to notice them (assuming he did service the watch and it was the right watch), or because they hadn't yet been made.
It is the jeweller who sold Albert his watch who is understood to have tried polishing out some scratches. And he did state that he was almost certain the marks that were found later by Albert and co had been in the watch when he sold it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 02:10 pm | | Thanks Caz
I knew it was something like that. Didn't Melvin Harris or someone of a similar ilk once get the jeweller to say that the scratches relating to JTR must have been added after he sold the watch?
I still go with the two watch theory of Feldy's.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 04:18 pm | | Peter,
Just for fun, try and explain the details of Paul Feldman's "two watch theory" to us, would you?
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 05:15 pm | | No problem John.
I'm glad to see you left yourself with an "out" by saying 'Just for fun'.
Paul is convinced that Albert owns two watches. In an attempt to make sense of the contradictory information coming from the Murphys and Tim Dundas and Albert, Paul has speculated that the Gold watch that contains the scratches relating to JTR/JM may have passed down into Albert's family 'over the years'.
Paul further speculated that in order to be able to bring the watch to public attention without having to suffer the stigma of a (possible) relationship to JTR/JM, Albert bought the white faced watch in order to get a receipt that he could use to authenticate his "purchase" of the gold watch.
That's Paul's theory. I don't have one of my own. All I do know is that the people who sold the watch and the person to whom it was sent for repair are experts in their fields, and I am convinced that if they had seen a gold faced watch with gold numerals on it then they would have described it as such.
Instead they describe a white faced watch with black numerals, NO initials engraved on the outside casing, and the words Lancaster Verity inscribed on the face.
How do you reconcile the two descriptions, John?
You can't, there are two watches.
Obviously I'm no watch expert, but I 'believe' from what I have read that a Lancaster Verity is a rarity and, as such, it would stick in the mind of someone in the trade who got to handle one. I dunno, maybe it's like a record dealer getting hold of an original Beatles 7" single.
You often subject me to interrogation regarding the problems relating to the handwriting issue. I feel it is now your turn to do some ducking and diving.
Good Luck
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 05:28 pm | | Wait, Peter,
You're not quite done.
You say: "they describe a white faced watch with black numerals, NO initials engraved on the outside casing, and the words Lancaster Verity inscribed on the face."
Now which of the people you mention are included in the "they" here? I forget. I remember this alleged discrepancy but I forget who caused it. Does everyone involved talk of this other watch, which does not match the watch with the scratchings?
And when did they see the "second" watch? The one that was the wrong one? And why did they see it? I'm still not sure I understand this theory.
Which watch are you saying was examined for scratches and engravings inside by the experts? And why is the alleged existence of another watch relevant to the question of the first watch's authenticity. And how, exactly, does the supposed existence of the two watches "make sense of the contradictory information coming from the Murphys and Tim Dundas and Albert?"
We need more details here, Peter.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 06:03 pm | | I'm back John. Didn't go anywhere if the truth be told.
The "they" I refer to consists of The Murphys of Wallasey and Tim Dundas.
PHF cleared them all, in his own mind, of any complicity in a deception.
From memory - I believe they were shown a black and white photograph of the watch (possibly in a Liverpool newspaper) and identified it as the one that Albert had purchased. PHF quite rightly stated that identification did not match up with the descriptions previously given of a white faced watch, with black numerals, NO initials engraved on the outside casing (NO room for them apparently, owing to an 'elaborate' design)and the words 'Lancaster Verity' on the face of the watch.
Clearly there were two watches. It is inconceivable that 'experts' in their chosen fields should sell a 'Gold watch, gold face, gold numerals, NO writing on the face, but with initials engraved on the back (JO)' and then later describe it as 'White faced, black numerals, Lancaster Verity written on the face, NO initials engraved on the back owing to a design there'.
Does that help?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 06:38 pm | | Not really, Peter.
Now the story starts to get interesting (and delightfully Feldmaniacal).
So all of them (the Murphys and Tim Dundas) looked at a black and white picture of a watch and said it was the one Albert bought. But the watch in the black and white picture did not match the watch as described in previous accounts, given by whom? All of them? Did they actually say when they saw the picture that it was a different watch? And all this somehow "proves" there must have been two watches?
I love this. Did Paul Feldman go to a bad, mail-order junior detective school somewhere, or is he just joyously blind to the rules of logic and inference?
But let's accept this confusion for now and keep going.
You haven't answered any of the important questions.
Once again:
Which watch are you saying was examined for scratches and engravings inside by the experts? And why is the alleged existence of another watch relevant to the question of the first watch's authenticity. And how, exactly, does the supposed existence of the two watches "make sense of the contradictory information coming from the Murphys and Tim Dundas and Albert?"
It still means nothing yet.
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 08:58 pm | | Caz,
"It is the jeweler who sold Albert his watch who is understood to have tried polishing out some scratches."
According to Shirley Harrison, Ron Murphy "tried to clean up the scratch marks with jewelers rouge". However if you look at his statement of 20 Oct 1993 in Feldman's book he says only that the "watch case was then cleaned and the watch put in the window". Did he make a more specific statement at some other point?
And you're right, he did say he was "almost certain" that the scratches were there prior to his sale to AJ, he goes on to say that they "were not markings that I would have taken notice of". Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Also, it's clear from the statement that he had been shown the watch and then asked for his statement. I'd be curious to know what he remembered before they shoved the watch in his face. Doing that somewhat taints his testimony in my opinion. I gotta admit, I'm a bit skeptical there.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 09:13 pm | | Peter,
Ron Murphy did not say that the watch he sold AJ was a "'White faced, black numerals, Lancaster Verity written on the face, NO initials engraved on the back owing to a design there'". Only Tim Dundas is saying that. Ron Murphy backs Albert Johnson's story and goes with the "gold face" description. He was shown AJ's watch and specifically identified it as the one he sold.
According to a statement made to Keith Skinner (Which was faxed to Feldman, 18 Feb 1997) Mr Murphy remembered that he had a number of watches matching the description given by Tim Dundas, that would probably have been sent to him to overhaul. This would explain the mistake on Tim's part. Mr. Murphy had sent a number of watches to be repaired, and Tim is simply remembering the wrong Verity. It seems like the most likely explanation to me.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 09:40 am | | Hi John, Caz, John
John (Hacker).
"Ron Murphy did not say that the watch he sold AJ was a "'White faced, black numerals, Lancaster Verity written on the face, NO initials engraved on the back owing to a design there'".
Yes he did. Just look at P.240 - 242 PHF 'The Final Chapter':
" ...PHF: 'You remember Verity being on the face of the watch?'
TD: 'Oh yes'.
PHF: 'You didn't notice any engraved initials at all at the back of the watch?'
TD. 'No'.
I asked him in what colour the word 'Verity' appeared on the face of the watch, black or gold.
TD. 'Black. In black, the same colour as the numbers'.
PHF. 'And the numbers were in black?'
TD 'Oh yes ... on the porcelain dial'.
...I then called Mr Murphy, owner of the shop where Albert Johnson bought the watch. Mr Murphy confirmed that the watch was white faced, with black numbers and 'Verity' engraved in black on the face. I also asked Mr Murphy whether any letters were engraved on the back, as opposed to scratched on the inside back. Mr Murphy categorically stated that there were not and could not have been, as the ornate design left no room for anything else. Mr Murphy has also told Harold Brough ... that while he could remember 'scratches' he could categorically state that there were no engravings.
I would say that's pretty conclusive John.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 09:52 am | | Hi John (Omlor)
This one's for you.
"And all this somehow "proves" there must have been two watches?"
Well, I think it does, don't you?
"Which watch are you saying was examined for scratches and engravings inside by the experts?
It appears to me John, that PHF is raising the argument, validly, that it was the white faced porcelain dial watch with black numerals that was examined by TD and sold by Ron Murphy. Therefore anything that RM and TD have to say in relation to the gold watch has no relevance as they have never seen it. Of course the 'experts' have been examining Albert's Gold faced, Gold numerals watch. The one with the scratches relating to 'JTR' in it.
"And why is the alleged existence of another watch relevant to the question of the first watch's authenticity".
I don't think it is. I think it just raises the very likely proposition that RM and TD have never even seen the gold faced watch and are therefore cannot cast doubt on it's authenticity.
"And how, exactly, does the supposed existence of the two watches "make sense of the contradictory information coming from the Murphys and Tim Dundas and Albert?"
I would have thought that one was obvious. Everyone was accepting RM and TD statements as being in relation to the watch Albert owns. But they were describing a totally different watch. A watch that may have had scratches of it's own in the back. Scratches that RM or TD may have tried to polish out without knowing what they were. The watch may not have had any scratches in it at all. But it is a red herring. None of TD's or RM's comments can be taken in relation to Albert's watch, because they have never seen it.
This isn't even a case of wishful Feldmaniacal thinking, John. This is just pure fact. Ron Murphy sold AJ the porcelain, white faced, black numerals, 'Verity' on the front in black, no engravings (JO) on the back, watch. Tim Dundas describes exactly the same watch. But AJ owns a gold watch. Gold dial. Gold numerals. Gold casing. Engravings (JO) are on the back. 'Verity' is not on the face in black or any other colour.
John, there are two watches.
Regards
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 10:22 am | | Peter,
Didn't Tim Dundas later swear under oath that the watch Albert has with the alleged "Jack" engravings is in fact a watch he examined? And wasn't this well after he had this interview with Feldman, where he first talks about a "black-lettered" watch?
Why would he do that, if he was still confused?
Is Tim Dundas part of some conspiracy against the watch? Why?
And didn't Mr. Murphy also admit that he had a number of watches which he sent to Dundas and didn't he later confirm that the one Albert has with the "Jack" marks was the one he sold him?
There aren't two watches, Peter. There are a whole bunch of watches. But that's beside the point. Mr. Murphy finally did identify the watch he sold to Albert and Tim Dundas did swear under oath that he examined that same watch.
And none of this has anything at all to do with whether there is any reason to think this watch was ever really James Maybrick's.
Paul writes, in his book, "It is obvious that two watches must exist and that their existence has caused great confusion." But that's not what his own evidence shows.
It shows, in fact, that many watches exist and many went from Murphy to Dundas. But in the end, notice that only Paul is confused. Murphy remembers selling the watch to Albert and Dundas remembers examining it.
Unless you finally think they both have some reason to lie.
Once again, Feldman needs a melodrama to create his "confusion" and raise doubts, because the documented evidence that exists works against his case.
It's an old story by now.
We're all used to it.
Bye,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 10:40 am | | John
I fail to see how you can treat this issue so light heartedly.
I'm not aware of TD swearing anything "under oath", but it is true to say that he identified the watch in a black and white photograph as being the one he had been sent for repair.
I don't dispute that there were other watches sent from RM to TD for purposes of repair. What I do dispute is that any of them, other than the white dial one, were sold to Albert.
RM clearly remembers selling the White Dial watch to AJ. He described it in detail. Apparently TD remembered it because "Verity" watches are rare. How many of the other watches that went from RM to TD for repair can either man remember and describe so clearly?
In a sense, John, you are right. This doesn't add much to the debate over whether or not the watch was once in James Maybrick's possession.
Apart from the blindingly obvious that Albert didn't buy the gold faced watch from Ron Murphy.
Why would Albert invent the story of buying the watch from Ron Murphy? And a story it is. Because the watch that Albert bought from Ron Murphy was the white faced watch, not the gold one.
We can only speculate.
Regards
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 11:24 am | | Peter,
You really should read your own source material.
You write: "I'm not aware of TD swearing anything 'under oath'"
But Paul Feldman says:
"Inexplicably, almost two years later on 3 July 1996, Timothy Dundas swore an affidavit that the watch pictured in the Liverpool Daily Post with Albert Johnson in September 1993, was the watch he 'repaired.'"
Other than the Feldmanian editorial insertion of "inexplicably," this seems pretty clear to me. And it's only "inexplicable" to Paul. Dundas was apparently quite clear and confident enough to swear finally that this was the watch.
And despite Paul's rhetorical questions two paragraphs later, neither Tim Dundas nor Mr. Murphy seem confused at all by the end of this thing. Tim swears this gold watch was the watch he repaired and Mr. Murphy confirms in February of 1997 that he sent several watches to Tim including this one and also that the watch Albert has with the "Jack" engravings was the watch he sold him.
Again, from Paul's book:
"Albert showed Mr. Murphy the gold watch which Mr. Murphy confirmed had been purchased from his shop."
So, by this time, the confusion seems pretty well cleared up for everyone but Paul.
There were a number of watches that went from Mr. Murphy to Mr. Dundas. Both men confirm that the gold watch was one of them. Both men agree.
Are they lying? Why? They would have no reason to, no motive.
Paul can obfuscate all he wants, but he has no evidence that this watch came from anywhere other than from the man who says he sold it.
And as usual, in order for the Feldman story to be true, you have to ignore the actual documented evidence in favor of unaccoutable human errors or unmotivated deceit and completely unevidenced speculation.
Where goeth reason? Where goeth rational thought?
Once Paul starts concocting dramatic scenarios, I'm afraid they leave the building.
Can anyone say "John Over?"
Well, this John is over and out.
(O.K., that was hokey.) 
Bye,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 17 February 2002 - 01:38 pm | | Hi John
Thanks for that. I appreciate you pointing out Tim Dundas swearing the affidavit. The word used was 'oath', and that wasn't enough to prompt my grey matter into remembering the affidavit. Doh!
True, RM and TD both stated that the watch AJ showed them was the watch that had been sold and repaired, but Paul is perfectly right to say 'inexplicably' as both men had previously described the porcelain dial, white faced, black numerals etc etc watch.
Clearly they were talking about a specific watch, not one of many that got sent from RM to TD for repair purposes. RM recalled that watch for a reason. What was it?
And here's an interesting thing: Albert was advised to return to Ron Murphy's shop to, I believe, have the date of the hallmark and the number of the watch added to the receipt. Something he apparently did at Robert Smith's suggestion. So why would Ron Murphy say, when confronted with the watch in 1993 "Having now seen the watch for the first time since selling it ...".
We aren't talking about a vast amount of time here. AJ bought "the watch" in July 1992. RM made his statement in October 1993. A little over twelve months.
Now let me have a go at that conundrum set by John Omlor:
John Ofer, John Ovver, John Ofver, John Oh-ver, John avert, John - sorry can't do it.
Regards etc
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
