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:
General Letters or Communications: Two authentic comms from the Ripper? - by c.d. 1 minute ago.
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - by Abby Normal 6 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.
General Letters or Communications: Two authentic comms from the Ripper? - by Abby Normal 1 hour and 14 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - by Bridewell 1 hour and 17 minutes ago.
General Letters or Communications: Two authentic comms from the Ripper? - by Bridewell 1 hour and 27 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (26 posts)
General Letters or Communications: Two authentic comms from the Ripper? - (17 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (16 posts)
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (4 posts)
Bury, W.H.: Mock trial for Bury Feb 3 - (1 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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
  #3771  
Old 07-13-2017, 07:29 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 586
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Caz:



Oh heck, if it was anything more than a simple one-step process that could've been carried out by anyone who owned a Dremel and a magnifying glass, then I guess there is nobody alive who could possibly have done it! If it was "complex" we may as well assume it was impossible. And I'm further drawn inescapably to that conclusion by the fact that I don't have a name for the actual perpetrator of the fraud. I mean, if it 'must remain speculation' then the possibility must be entirely discounted, surely...

It's a shame the dating wasn't given as 'very recent', so that I could see whether Caz would play her ever-reliable gambit: "But if the watch were a recent hoax, wouldn't the hoaxer have made sure to artifically age the scratches?"
The problem remains that due to the excessive polishing, no actual correct dating can be determined, which effectively renders the "had to be old and had to be done skillfully" argument null and void.

There's no real data to suggest that this was beyond anyone's capability, and the very fact that it exists is proof that it wasn't beyond anyone's capability, lol.

It's so easy to play the fool and yet have people eating out of your hand, and we have so many examples of this that it's not even up for debate anymore.

There are "scientists" out there who are routinely fooled by even the most obvious bits of nonsense, and people latch onto their dumbfounded confusion as though this lends the hoax credence.

Piltdown Man was an amazing example of how utterly tragic it is to place your faith in the hands of blokes in labcoats.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3772  
Old 07-13-2017, 07:32 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
Might I add, that according to my friend the jeweller, every jeweller worth his salt, looks for inscriptions inside watches. They have dates put there by previous repairers which gives the repairer some scale as to when the watch was last repaired. It's inconceivable that Dundas would not have looked inside the white faced Verity watch, as purchased by Albert Johnston, and missed the inscriptions in question.
Not only that, but they must also be very wary of any markings that they may be blamed for producing during restoration or cleaning.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3773  
Old 07-13-2017, 07:56 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
So you have found documented examples of 'the pub', 'the inn', 'the tavern' or 'my local' as nicknames, Mike? What watering hole nicknames have you found that would be the equivalent of 'the post house'? It's not even strictly a nickname, is it? Maybrick's grandfather would have known the Post Office Tavern in its post house days. He was parish clerk when James was born and the young Maybricks grew up in Church Alley, which as you know is not much more than a stone's throw away, with Liverpool's Whitechapel not much further than that in the other direction. If granddad knew it as the post house when he was using it as a post house, is it so far out there to think he would have carried on referring to it as the post house when the original post office was established next door and even after this moved to another part of the city?
I really don't get the point in pushing the idea that the writer of the diary was familiar with a totally obscure nickname for this pub, though, Caz. You keep pushing the idea that the Old Post Office was known by the weirdly spelled nickname of "Poste House," despite there being no evidence of this whatsoever beyond the opinion of a random bloke that you talked to, yet when I ask people who are frequenters to these pubs in town, I don't get the same response, I get "Hmmm, never heard of that one."

So we're left with what seems more probable:

Either, the forger was privy to some obscure knowledge regarding a nickname for an entirely different pub that has since been lost to the sands of time.

or

The forger was incorrect in thinking that the "Poste House" was known as the Poste House when it was called the Muck Midden.

So, to you, you think it more likely that he was actually talking about the Old Post Office, yet just added the "e" on mistakenly which was coincidentally exactly how the name appeared in the title of the pub that would come about years later? And you seriously don't think that that's a bit silly?

When I mentioned the Gore's directory not including the name "Poste House," you told me I was incorrect and then informed me about the Old Post Office, but the fact remains that this was called "the Old Post Office Tavern" and no such nickname for it ever existed in any print I've been able to find, nor have the chaps at the central library, the Picton reading rooms, or anyone I've ever met ever heard of this obscure nickname. So, am I to believe the assumption of a man whom you have spoken to, or go with the probability of likelihood?

Seeing as the diary contains clues as to the fact that it wasn't written in the 19th century, I'd hazard a guess that the writer had no idea about the Old Post Office Tavern and it's possible yet completely obscure nickname that coincidentally matches a known pub in the district. The very spelling alone is a dead-giveaway, but if you choose to believe that it was a mere mistake brought on by "poste haste," well then that's entirely up to you.

Occams razor dictates that this is a modern hoax and we have several clues that prove it, but I can't tell people what to think, it's up to them. If you can find me literally any evidence to suggest that the Tavern was ever known by such a nickname, then I'll be happy to reconsider, but there is no such evidence available, and I have to wonder where your source got his information from, as I can't find it, and it's not for a lack of trying, Caz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
But the most limited possibility of all has surely got to be the Barretts creating this probable hoax with their daughter watching, just a few days before Mike was due to take it to London. For me it's not even a remote possibility, and even Melvin Harris knew better than to swallow it.
I can only speculate on this, Caz, but again, which seems more likely to you? Idk how you can view this as not even a remote possibility, yet totally see the possibility in an even less likely scenario that has the hoaxer being privy to an absolutely obscure and virtually unknown nickname, as opposed to merely incorrectly mentioning the Poste House. Do you not see the contradictory credence being given in these two instances?

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Alternatively, as the Maybricks would never have seen a sign reading The Poste House [or even The Post House] over the door of any tavern in the town, our hoaxer could have been thinking of 'Poste Restante', which would have been a familiar enough sign at the right time.
True, but I don't get the significance of this, Caz. It seems far more likely that the "e" was a product of Poste House, and the intention to make the spelling seem more archaic.



Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Okay, so you haven't seen the "HQ" among your 'pubs and their nicknames' publications either? And presumably different people can have different nicknames for their usual haunts and these can also change over the years?

I'm happy with that.

Love,

Caz
X
Something you overlook is that I've not been asking or searching for the name "HQ," but if I did, I'd likely find at least someone who could verify it, whereas I've searched high and low for the "Poste House" and have found literally nothing whatsoever, and the only people who seem to have heard of this totally unknown nickname are two men whom you have supposedly met and yet won't provide any details on other than their initials.

As it stands, the more likely solution is this:

due to the modern expressions, the details lifted from the police report, the inclusion of details that are available in books that we know Mike Barrett had in his possession, the use of the Poste House pub - that it's a modern hoax.

The weight of the evidence for it being a modern hoax by far outweighs any evidence for it being an older hoax, and there's simply no real rebuttal to that glaring realization, imo.

Why on earth anyone feels that coincidence is rife as opposed to the far more likely answer of it being a modern fake is beyond me, but some people won't budge on their beliefs, regardless of the weight of issues against their theories. Just ask Ike!

Last edited by Mike J. G. : 07-13-2017 at 08:04 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3774  
Old 07-13-2017, 07:59 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
I don't know whether the J O was added for this effect, or whether they were already on the watch...
I don't recall anyone suggesting that the professionally inscribed "J O" was a modern addition, or that it was commissioned by the hoaxer, or indeed that the hoaxer was a professional engraver. Those initials were on the watch when Albert bought it in July 1992.

Quote:
Scraping/tracing the original initials would also be beneficial when scratching the other initials in, as it would possibly transfer aged particles into the fresh carvings.
Not sure what you are getting at here, Mike. The "J O" engraving is on the outside of the watch while all the scratching was done on an inner surface. There is no evidence as far as I am aware that the "J O" has been scraped, traced or otherwise tampered with by any tools used to make the crude scratchings.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3775  
Old 07-13-2017, 08:09 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
True, Henry, and thus I have decided to pen a poem for the topic so as to save our arses!:

The good Sir Jim,
he wasn't dim,
he invented expressions,
such as "one-off," he did.

He had two types of hand,
with which he would fool all the land.
A walking enigma, that you'd never understand.

Tin match-box empty, he may well have listed.
He even drank in the Poste House before it ever existed!

He was the Torso Man, and Saucy Jack,
he knew his way around London in the bitter pitch black.

The good Sir Jim,
Jack of all trades,
arsenic, strychnine and a butcher's blade.

A diary he wrote,
to explain all his deeds,
satisfying the questions and quelling the needs.

So a salute to Sir Jim,
please raise a toast,
to the fabled James Maybrick,
and his blotchy-faced ghost.
That's not half bad, Mike.

Now if only the other Mike could have produced something even approaching this quality when he was desperate to claim authorship of the diary, you wouldn't have had the chance to entertain us.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3776  
Old 07-13-2017, 08:10 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Well there has never been the slightest shred of evidence that the Johnsons and the Barretts knew of each other's existence when the scratches came to light, so you'd be looking for a phantom raspberry blower who knew both families and was responsible for engineering the situations which led to the emergence of their diary via Mike and their watch via Albert. Highly plausible - not.

Love,

Caz
X
Caz, I have to wonder whether this desire for the hoax to be older is jading your outlook, seeing as how you can comfortably rule out implausibilities such as this, yet totally find it plausible that the writer of the diary invented obscure expressions and was privy to the now completely unknown knowledge that the Old Post Office Tavern was known as "the Poste House," a striking coincidence in this book of coincidences, seeing as how a pub with that exact spelling and title would pop up some years later...

So, I have to say, forgive me for not paying much attention to what you personally find implausible!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3777  
Old 07-13-2017, 08:14 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
That's not half bad, Mike.

Now if only the other Mike could have produced something even approaching this quality when he was desperate to claim authorship of the diary, you wouldn't have had the chance to entertain us.

Love,

Caz
X
Cheers, Caz, I'm quite proud of this, seeing as it's my first attempt at a Maybrick-related poem, although I wrote it in about 5 minutes!

(Shameless plug! https://allpoetry.com/Gilly86)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3778  
Old 07-13-2017, 08:34 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
So Albert Johnston never owned a gold faced Verity watch into which was inscribed the initials of the murder victims etc? in effect he only owned a white faced porcelain Verity watch into which the murder victims initials, the words "I an Jack", and "James Maybrick" were inscribed?
I have no idea what you are on, Observer, but I'll have a pint please.

I also have no idea what you are on about, and I suspect neither have you.

Quote:
I very much doubt that Dundas, should he have saw those inscriptions inside the watch in question would have failed to observe them.
But if he was recalling a different watch entirely, which had nothing out of the ordinary inside for him to observe, I fail to see the usefulness of his claims. The scratch marks we are talking about - on Albert's watch - are so crudely made, so faint, so worn and so hard to decipher that unless you already know they are there on that surface, you wouldn't necessarily take any notice of them if you did see them, if you are constantly having different watches to work with.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 07-13-2017 at 08:40 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3779  
Old 07-13-2017, 08:44 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
Might I add, that according to my friend the jeweller, every jeweller worth his salt, looks for inscriptions inside watches. They have dates put there by previous repairers which gives the repairer some scale as to when the watch was last repaired. It's inconceivable that Dundas would not have looked inside the white faced Verity watch, as purchased by Albert Johnston, and missed the inscriptions in question.
So where does Dundas mention seeing any such repair marks in the watch he thought was sold to Albert?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3780  
Old 07-13-2017, 08:45 AM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I have no idea what you are on, Observer, but I'll have a pint please.

I also have no idea what you are on about, and I suspect neither have you.
I have no idea what I'm on about? There you go again. Read Paul Feldman's book starting page 217.



Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
But if he was recalling a different watch entirely, which had nothing out of the ordinary inside for him to observe, I fail to see the usefulness of his claims. The scratch marks we are talking about - on Albert's watch - are so crudely made, so faint, so worn and so hard to decipher that unless you already know they are there on that surface you wouldn't necessarily take any notice of them if you did see them.
That's BS Caz. Did you really read my post on the subject? Albert saw the marks, as would Dundas, he would be looking for them. As I said, it's part of his job, he'll have looked through a glass at every watch he repaired. You can huff, and you can puff, as is you're want, but there's no way Dundas would have missed those marks, whichever watch he looked at

Last edited by Observer : 07-13-2017 at 08:49 AM.
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 04:01 PM.


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