Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
A6 Murders: Bob Woffinden has died - by NickB 19 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - by Trevor Marriott 3 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - by Darryl Kenyon 4 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (9 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - (7 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - (6 posts)
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (2 posts)
Bury, W.H.: "...but because you are going to hang me you will get nothing out of me..." - (1 posts)
A6 Murders: scan of Hanratty statement re Rhyl alibi - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1701  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:52 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I’m starting to think that Friday was a late April Fools day. Surely the posts from that day can’t be serious. We are told that the person who sold the watch “to a member of the Murphy/Stewart family” was “a little man”. Excuse me? What does the size of this man have to do with anything?
I was just repeating how the stranger was described, David. Anything wrong with that? Maybe he was huge and the source was lying for no apparent reason.

Quote:
It's not even a fair representation of the story which is that this man sold the watch to Mr Stewart. There's no question of us not knowing who it was and having to describe him as “a member of the Murphy/Stewart family”. A man came into a jewellery shop and, after haggling over price, sold a watch to a jeweller (Mr Stewart). What’s odd about that?
Only that it's not clear who actually got this information from whom. I've been looking at the various sources and the only people I can find who claimed they actually spoke directly to Mr Stewart, to ask about the watch that his son-in-law eventually sold to Albert in July 1992, were his daughter, Mrs Murphy, and Albert Johnson. It would be good to know if anyone investigating its origins, who wasn't at the centre of the story, ever got to speak to the old man, if only to confirm that he knew which watch he'd been asked to recall. As you surely agree, it would be less than satisfactory if we are relying on someone so close to the story to have asked the right questions of Mr Stewart and obtained an accurate first-hand account. Had Anne refused to let her frail, elderly father be interviewed by Paul Feldman, for instance, but had given her own account of his 'diary' recollections, I can only imagine the howls of derision that would surely have followed. As it is, few people accept that Billy Graham was remembering 'the' diary, when asked, and not some other old book.

Quote:
This is the story as told by Stewart’s daughter (according to Feldman):

She said he [Stewart] recalled a little man coming to the shop he once owned in Lancaster. He had requested a sum of money which her father refused and the man left instantly. Mrs Murphy’s father had an instant change of heart and ran outside to recall the man. The transaction was concluded.

There's no mention there of “no questions asked or answered” but if no questions were asked then what is the purpose of saying that none were answered? Surely it’s impossible to answer questions which haven’t been asked.
It's a figure of speech, David. There is nothing here that suggests this little man was asked anything about himself or the history of the watch he was trying to flog, or that he volunteered any such information, whether asked for it or not.

Quote:
We are being told in this thread that far from the watch being purchased by Mr Stewart from the little man in 1980, it was actually purchased by Mr Murphy after 9th March 1992 and the entire story told by the elderly Mr Stewart to both Albert Johnson and his daughter about the little man from 1980 was a complete lie.
NO 'WE' ARE NOT. It's a mere suggestion in the absence of any documentary evidence of the watch's whereabouts up until it was seen in the Murphys' shop window in 1992 and snapped up by Albert Johnson.

If Mr Stewart was happy, back in the early 80s, to buy a gold watch from a stranger without requiring any further information, why not Mr Murphy in 1992? When Albert returned to ask for that information, in 1993, Murphy had none to give him because it was never asked for. He thought there was something 'wrong' with the watch at first and even offered to buy it back. Did something click at that point? Did he remember something about the stranger that suggested he was in a hurry to take the cash and go, and wouldn't be coming back in a hurry to argue the toss about when that was? "Wait a minute - I flogged that gold watch to the shop in March 1992!" "Did you? Where did you get it from then?" "Er, I'd rather not say". "Can you prove it was you, or the date you flogged it? Did you give the shop your name or keep a copy of any receipt?" "Er no, sorry".

Quote:
That’s the tangle that the world’s leading expert has got herself into and from her failed attempt at extricating herself it doesn’t look she’s actually going to be able to untangle the tangle.
As I say, it's only a suggestion, and it really doesn't bother me whether the thing was flogged by a stranger in the early 80s or early 90s. It remains fortunate for whoever made those engravings that the history of the watch begins with that little man in a hurry for the cash.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 04-20-2018 at 05:13 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1702  
Old 04-20-2018, 05:36 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
It's not particularly impressive, though. He uses "spurned" twice, thereby exhibiting the same paucity of vocabulary evident elsewhere in the diary. There's a manifestation of the diarist's familiar "superflous did" (or "does" in this case), perhaps caused by a desire to have the syllables match - a desire seemingly abandoned after line 3. This is all the sadder because there wouldn't have been a problem with the syllables if a spurious "so" hadn't been tacked onto the end of line 1 - another of the diarist's tics ("The whore shall suffer more than she has ever done so"; "My hands feel colder than they have ever done so", etc).

Starting each line with the same words is quite effective, but it's a familiar, ancient device (cf. Ecclesiastes, The Beatitudes and, more strikingly, Corinthians), and easy to pull off.

About the only half-decent thing about the verse is the half-rhyme between "yearn" and "spurned". Having said that, its effect is rather diluted by the fact that the line before "spurned" is actually "yearn for" - perhaps written thus so that the syllables in line 3 matched those in lines 1&2. "tis love for which I yearned / tis love that she spurned" would have worked better, if the writer had given up their fetish for matching syllables sooner. Edit: Come to think of it, a slightly spurious "so" would have helped here ("tis love for which I yearned / tis love that she so spurned") but, irony of ironies, the writer missed his chance!

Despite the apparent cleverness of this little rhyme, it's arguably only a notch or two up from the clunky doggerel we see throughout the diary.
Afternoon Gareth,

It's an interesting little coincidence that Richard Crashaw includes a couple of 'tis love lines in his works.

The first is from A Hymn to the Name and Honour of the Admirable Saint Teresa, which begins:

'Love, thou art absolute, sole Lord
of life and death...'

The line in question here is:

''Tis love, not years or limbs, that can
Make the martyr, or the man.'


The second is even more interesting as it smacks of "Sir Jim's" evident love of word games, particularly in relation to his own name:

'CRASHAWE,

THE ANAGRAM "HE WAS CAR."

Was Car then Crashaw, or was Crashaw Car,
Since both within one name combined are?
Yes, Car's Crashaw, he Car; 'tis love alone
Which melts two hearts, of both composing one;
So Crashaw's still the same...'


The only mystery is whether Crashaw's car was a Jaguar or a Mercedes.

Oh and by the by, Crashaw was crap at anagrams and spelling. He put an E on the end of his name to make this one work. Like the PostE House and postE haste. And not too dissimilar from SE Mibrac either. You can make MI BRACES out of that, which is arguably a better stab at it than IM A BRICKY.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 04-20-2018 at 05:57 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1703  
Old 04-20-2018, 06:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,088
Default

Thinking about it, Gareth, I reckon I was wrong. Crashaw's car was probably a Triumph - Spitfire at a wild guess.

In another one of those interesting little coincidences, Crashaw drove himself into the late Victorian era and parked up alongside - and, to use Teresa May's words, "I am not making this up" - none other than Michael Maybrick's lyricist, Fred Weatherley. They appeared in adjacent columns of The Times on Christmas Day 1884, in an article about Christmas books and the poets of Christmas, which my friend and researcher Rob Clack found for me back in 2004. He had noticed the name Crashaw and thought I might be interested, because of spurious claims made at that time on the message boards about the poet's obscurity during the late Victorian period. I'm not sure if Rob also noticed the name of F. E. Weatherley, to the left and just half a dozen lines below Crashaw's, or the relevance of this pairing in connection with the Crashaw quotation in the Maybrick diary. If he did, he didn't mention it.

Equally, there is no mention of it in any of Mike Barrett's forgery claims, so one can only imagine what he'd have made of it. I have this image of James Maybrick opening his newspaper and his Christmas pressies on that cold and frosty morning in 1884 and reading that article without the faintest clue that Crashaw and Weatherley would one day become 'almost' bedfellows again through the diary, like a funny little Morecambe & Wise sketch.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1704  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,816
Default

I have, of course, never discussed whether Mr Murphy would or would not have been "happy" to buy a gold watch from "a stranger" without requiring further information. What I have said is that, if he had done so, it would have been thoroughly dishonest for him to lie about it by saying that he hadn't done so and, then, tell a further lie by saying that his father-in-law had done exactly what he was trying to cover up in respect of his own actions! And if he was being thoroughly dishonest about such a fundamental aspect of provenance it must make him a dishonest jeweller. There can't possibly be anything controversial about that.

If, however, he, his wife and his father-in-law were providing an honest account of the purchase of the watch then it can't possibly have emerged from under the Battlecrease floorboards in March 1992 and the suggestion that it did was clearly incorrect.

Hey, perhaps well soon be told that the notion that the Diary emerged from under the floorboards of Battlecrease in March 1992 is no more than a suggestion.

Ooops, sorry, used the word "told" again which is verboten. Let me correct that because it seems we are never told anything, despite appearances to the contrary. Perhaps it will soon be suggested that the notion that the Diary emerged from under the floorboards of Battlecrease in March 1992 is no more than a suggestion.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1705  
Old 05-03-2018, 02:45 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,816
Default

Earlier in this thread, we were told by the World's Leading Expert on Melvin Harris what Harris's belief about the dating of documents was.

In #1577 on 5 April it was said:

"I wonder what Melvin would have made of the theory that the guardbook was only acquired at the end of March 1992 and the diary written into it and completed just a day or two before being shown to the British Museum's curator of 19th century manuscripts and to a specialist on 19th century literature? I think he might have laughed out loud if he'd had the capacity. His own argument was that writing using a Victorian style gallotannic ink couldn't be dated unless it was examined within a year of the ink drying, or at the outside six months, if certain conditions had allowed for it to have stabilised that quickly. He was presumably wrong about this too, and the scribe either knew it or took a complete gamble that they wouldn't come 'unstuck'. Even Baxendale wasn't fool enough to suggest the writing was less than a year old when he examined it, never mind just a couple of months."

No actual quote of Harris was provided and presumably the Expert was relying on memory as to what Harris said. The point was repeated a week later, on 13 April, in #1652 when it was said:

"If it's 'literally impossible' to say when ink met paper, why did Melvin say it was possible, within six months or a year of the ink drying and stabilising?"

Without seeing the quote from Harris I obviously couldn't answer that but I have since found two actual written quotes by Harris about dating documents.

Here is the first:

"The truth is that once an iron-gall ink has matured on the paper for eighteen months or so, no one, on this planet, is able to date that ink by visual examination."

So that refers only to dating by visual examination.

Then we have the second:

"I have to repeat that there is no known testing method that will date ink-on-paper. You can date the RELATIVE ages of ink samples applied to one sheet, and this is of use in detecting additions, but after a very short period (this can be as low as months in fact) you can not give a year for any samples."

That is what he actually said. I believe it is consistent with what I have always said.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.