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:
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by jerryd 24 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - by John G 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (20 posts)
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - (10 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (8 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files - (3 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Victorian Street Prostitutes - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Please allow me to introduce myself.... - (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
  #2261  
Old 12-22-2016, 02:49 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenOwl View Post
Whatever came of the watch - was that proven to be a hoax? I always felt that it added weight to the Diary, but the official research camp seemed to distance themselves from it. I guess the problem is that although the watch is undoubtedly old enough to have been Sir Jim's, nobody could prove when the scratches were made. IIRC not only did it have far better provenance than the Diary, it also passed initial scientific tests, AND the signature matched that of Maybrick's wedding certificate and will.
Hi StevenOwl,

The watch is rarely talked about, it is true. And yet you make (or hint at) a very good point. The scratches inside the watch have been dated to many tens of years old, and the Maybrick signature appears 'authentic'. It is just another factor in this complex, and utterly baffling case. If the watch appears to be genuine and can be dated back many tens of years (before 1992/3 obviously) and the journal is a modern hoax, what does that suggest? That the watch is authentic and the journal hoax was inspired in the late 1980s/early 1990s by it?

Fascinating thought (though pure speculation, of course!).

Ike
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2262  
Old 12-22-2016, 03:00 AM
StevenOwl StevenOwl is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Hi StevenOwl,

The watch is rarely talked about, it is true. And yet you make (or hint at) a very good point. The scratches inside the watch have been dated to many tens of years old, and the Maybrick signature appears 'authentic'. It is just another factor in this complex, and utterly baffling case. If the watch appears to be genuine and can be dated back many tens of years (before 1992/3 obviously) and the journal is a modern hoax, what does that suggest? That the watch is authentic and the journal hoax was inspired in the late 1980s/early 1990s by it?

Fascinating thought (though pure speculation, of course!).

Ike
And let's not forget that Albert Johnson paid 400 for the scientific testing himself, despite the Diary publishers offering to do so in return for a stake in it. Not the actions of a man who suspected that the test results would prove his watch to be a hoax. So we know that Johnson had owned the watch for 2 years prior the Diary coming to light, and that his actions do not point towards him being a hoaxer. We also know that the watch had been in the family of the jewellers who sold it to AJ for at least 15 years. I find it highly improbable that they made the scratches. So we have a watch that's claiming to be JM's, and is claiming that JM was JTR, and it's either genuine, or hoaxed sometime prior to 1976. Hmmm......
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2263  
Old 12-22-2016, 03:36 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Thank you Caligo, that is interesting.

Perhaps you can tell me this. If we replace the word "ticket" in Barrett's statement with the word "receipt", is it then in accord with the system you are describing? Hence:

"At this stage I was given a receipt on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this receipt over to the Office and I paid 50. The receipt was stamped.....I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped receipt and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased."

I've deleted from this the bit about him giving a false name when he paid his money (which I assume is inconsistent with what you are saying due to the registration system) but would the above section be roughly correct?
Hi David,

The above is #1574. Is this one of the posts you wished me to address? Beyond all the references to Outhwaite and Litherland in Ripper Diary, which you said you had later re-read, I'm not sure what you wanted me to say? Wasn't Caligo talking generally about auction houses in the north west, rather than O&L specifically?

The bottom line is that the details given by Mike were not recognised or accepted by O&L on any occasion that researchers have spoken directly with members of staff there.

No doubt you'd have been happier to see a written statement from the good people at O&L giving chapter and verse, but there seems little reason to believe they knew less about their own business and operating systems than Mike did, or that they were lying. And none of their customers from the late 80s/early 90s has come forward as far as I am aware to dispute O&L's version or confirm Mike's.

If you could clarify what it is you are still unhappy about I'll try to address that more specifically.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2264  
Old 12-22-2016, 03:58 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenOwl View Post
And let's not forget that Albert Johnson paid 400 for the scientific testing himself......
Indeed, indeed. I believe that Albert was offered something in the region of $40,000 for the watch from an Amercian collector, and then somewhat less for a part share, both of which he declined. This seems extraordinary and does strongly suggest that he was of the opinion that it was not a hoaxed artifact.

Baffling, baffling, baffling ...

Ike
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2265  
Old 12-22-2016, 04:10 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You know what, I've gone one-off piste and read one of Pierre's surreal threads about providing us all with a GSG-themed early Xmas present, and I have to admit to actually laughing out loud at a couple of David Orsam's retorts.

Doesn't happen to me often (unless I'm reading my own), so thought I'd put it out there that David Orsam may actually be a funny guy. Mebbes aye, mebbes no.

Ike
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2266  
Old 12-22-2016, 04:17 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The problem here is that Barrett says (evidently from his memory) "I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland". Presumably, the search through the files and archives "on both sides of the alleged sale date" was on both sides of January 1990. But if Barrett got the date wrong in his affidavit (through poor memory, perhaps caused by excessive alcohol consumption) then the failure to find the diary in the search would not be surprising.

Further, Barrett says in the affidavit that, prior to obtaining the O&L diary, "Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for 25.00". My understanding is that documentary evidence shows that the red diary was not obtained by Barrett until 26 March 1992. If Barrett did not visit O&L until after 26 March 1992 then that would explain why O&L couldn't find the diary in their records wouldn't it?
Right, this one is #1922.

Again, all I can usefully add is that such a search - whatever dates it was based on - could not have turned up the Victorian guard book used by the diarist unless Mike had told the truth about bidding for it there and winning it, but told a pack of 'demonstrable' untruths about what went on at the auction house. If he was so forgetful by the mid-90s that he thought the purchase was in 1990, and not 1992, and that he obtained it after the tiny 1891 diary arrived, it might explain why he had to make up the finer details from whole cloth, but that's what he did according to O&L.

But let me ask you this, David: are you seriously considering the possibility that the guard book - minus its 63 pages of writing - was won at auction after 26 March 1992 and transformed into the diary, as we know and hate it, in time to hand over on 13 April 1992 for the first of an unknown number of close visual examinations and forensic tests, by an unknown number of professional document examiners, specialising in an unknown number of fields? Wouldn't the Barretts have both needed to be clinically insane to attempt this, in the wake of the disastrous Hitler Diaries, and then imagine in a million years that they wouldn't be banged up for fakery before either of them could say - let alone spell - "Kujau"?

Assuming we both believe it to be demonstrably untrue that James Maybrick ever held the pen that wrote the diary, I do find it extraordinary that anyone could still fondly imagine that Mike or Anne (or Gerard Kane or Billy Graham) might have been able to do so in less than three weeks and not be exposed and arrested just as quickly.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 12-22-2016 at 04:20 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2267  
Old 12-22-2016, 04:40 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Assuming we both believe it to be demonstrably untrue that James Maybrick ever held the pen that wrote the diary ...
X
Caz - hold the horses steady! Surely neither of you believe it to be demonstrably untrue???

As much as you are the Queen of the Casebook, I have to exert my democratic right to challenge such even regal claims!



The Ikester
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2268  
Old 12-22-2016, 04:41 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Caz - hold the horses steady! Surely neither of you believe it to be demonstrably untrue???

As much as you are the Queen of the Casebook, I have to exert my democratic right to challenge such even regal claims!



The Ikester
Sorry, of course David does. What on earth was I thinking?????
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2269  
Old 12-22-2016, 04:50 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,975
Default

Hi Caz,

I would normally shrink from even thinking of posting on this thread, as I have to watch my blood-pressure and general mental state, but what do you genuinely think about Pinkmoon's claim that Barrett 'was in the room when the Diary was written?' Sorry if that's a rather facile question, but his claim intrigues the hell out of me, and he seems to be very quiet on these boards at the moment.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2270  
Old 12-22-2016, 07:26 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Let's go through 10 key aspects of what Barrett says:

1. "When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out. I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
Hi David,

You were addressing this to another poster because I was absent from the thread at the time and don't think I ever used the phrase "fundamentally incorrect", or even referred specifically to the above claims.

I would just reiterate that as Mike made such a mess of the auction details, according to O&L, it doesn't bode well for any of the above reflecting the truth either. He seems to have suddenly recovered his memory remarkably well between his auction claims, being out by two years with his dates and the above attention to detail if the lapses were down to his brain being befuddled by booze. But I guess anything is possible with Mike, isn't it, including the ability from beyond the grave to make people wish away Keith Skinner's as yet unpublished Battlecrease evidence, which turn Mike's 'confessions' to mincemeat.

Incidentally, I believe I saw a recent post of yours observing that until the Battlecrease evidence emerges, my claim to its existence and to knowing its nature is baseless (a bit like Mike's claims then). But as I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't expect you or anyone else to take it at face value. I merely pointed in a certain direction and others financed and carried out the investigation, so it is not for me to spill those particular beans. You can take it or leave it, but you could have asked Keith yourself to confirm its existence and our knowledge of its nature, could you not?

Quote:
2."I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect?
Well I didn't say it was, but as he also told the private investigator he hired to prove he wrote the diary himself that this was caused when Anne dropped an actual kidney on it, I'd have to take his kidney with a few thousand grains of salt.

Quote:
3. "I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
Again, I didn't say that, but it has to be a pile of poo in order for the diary to have come out of Battlecrease and found its way, already written, into Mike's paws. There is no evidence for the former, while Keith would tell you there is compelling evidence for the latter.

Quote:
4. "Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
Firstly, there is no way in hell that Mike 'worked on the story' and produced those 63 pages with Anne's help in 11 days, allowing his young daughter to see them in action. If you believe otherwise, and have the evidence for it but are not at liberty to publish it yet, then fine. The Barretts did produce a typed transcript of the diary (I believe at Doreen Montgomery's request), so no doubt young Caroline would have been a witness to that.

Quote:
5. "During the writing of the diary of Jack the Ripper, when I was dictating to Anne, mistakes occurred from time to time for example, Page 6 of the diary, 2nd paragraph, line 9 starts with an ink blot, this blot covers a mistake when I told Anne to write down James instead of thomas. The mistake was covered by the Ink Blot."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
I don't, but taken with everything else, it stretches credulity to breaking point to allow that Mike was suddenly willing and able to claim something truthful about the diary's downfall and his part in it.

Quote:
6. "Page 226 of the Book, page 20, centre page inverted commas, quote "TURN ROUND THREE TIMES, AND CATCH WHOM YOU MAY". This was from Punch Magazine, 3rd week in September 1888. The journalist was P.W. WENN."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
I don't, but I'm not sure of its relevance. I have to presume that when the above statement was made, Mike would have had considerably longer than 11 days to try and familiarise himself with some of the related literature.

Quote:
7. "Page 228 of the book, page 22 Diary, centre top verse large ink blot which covers the letter 's' which Anne Barrett wrote down by mistake."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
I refer my honourable friend to answers I gave earlier.

Quote:
8. "Page 250 book, page 44 Diary, centre page, quote: "OH COSTLY INTERCOURSE OF DEATH". This quotation I took from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE, Volume 2 English Poetry and Prose 1540-1671, Ediated by Christopher Ricks, however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she wrote it down, she should have written down 'O' not 'OH'."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
I don't, but what does it prove? I refer my honourable friend to my recent post on the subject of when Mike first claimed to know where the quotation came from; when and where he claimed to find it; and when he was eventually able to produce a copy, claiming he had it at home all along.

Quote:
9. "I had actualy written the "Jack the Ripper Diary" first on my word processor, which I purchased in 1985, from Dixons in Church Street, Liverpool City Centre. The Diary was on two hard back discs when I had finished it. The Discs, the one Photograph, the compass, all pens and the remainder of the ink was taken by my sister Lynn Richardson to her home address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. When I asked her at a later date for the property she informed me that after an article had appeared in the Daily Post, by Harold Brough, she had destroyed everything, in order to protect me."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
I don't, but destroyed evidence is no evidence at all, and I seem to recall that his sister denied all knowledge and said she had washed her hands of his shenanegans (but then she would say that, wouldn't she). Again, none of the above is compatible with what I know about the diary having been in the Maybrick house.

Quote:
10. "I am the author of the Manuscript written by my wife Anne Barrett at my dictation which is known as The Jack the Ripper Diary."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
I refer my honourable friend to answers I gave earlier.

Now I really must go off and wrap the mother-in-law's Chrissie presents, so I'll have to read through the latest dozen or so pages of posts at some other time.

Love,

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


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 02:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.