Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[caz]

If you think you have spelt a word correctly you don't bother to look it up. If there is someone who uses a dictionary to check every word they write just in case they've spelt it wrong I've yet to meet them. In any case, it didn't really matter – if you are the forger of a Maybrick Diary and word is spelt wrong you just say blame it on Maybrick!

It's not black and white. Even good spellers can get it wrong sometimes. I don't think I'm a bad speller but I still look loads of stuff up just to make sure, when writing for public consumption. Naturally I take pot luck when only writing for myself. And one generally has some awareness of one's own abilities - or lack thereof. Yes, of course the hoaxer could just 'blame it on Maybrick'! That's exactly what they did in this case, isn't it? But was it in the hope that nobody would know how good a natural speller the real JM might have been in his private diary? Or was it because "Sir Jim" was meant to be murdering his way round the East End and being a thoroughly bad egg, not showing off excellent English Language & Communication skills and writing divine poetry to boot?

If the rotten rhymes were put there intentionally, to have our anti-hero "Sir Jim" knowingly struggle with the art of verse, more so apparently than with the art of murder, how is it possible to rule out that the poor prose was put there intentionally too, as a natural bedfellow for his puerile poems?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Today must be Groundhog Day considering the repeats of all the old arguments that have been done to death.

Today we are told that "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."

Yet, according to the Sunday Times of 19 September 1993, "Baxendale concluded it had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years".

That time period incorporates any time from 1989 to 1992.

But today's posts simply confirm my suspicion that some people simply do not understand the science of dating inks and fail to appreciate that it's literally impossible to identify the date ink has been put onto paper. A solubility test can do no more than say if the ink is recent or not and that's it.

You see this is what confuses me. Who are we meant to believe? Melvin Harris, David Baxendale or David Orsam?

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?

And if it's 'literally impossible' to say when ink met paper, and only possible, with a reliable solubility test result, to say if the writing is 'recent or not', how was Baxendale qualified to conclude the diary had 'probably' been written 'in the past two or three years'? Where did he conjure up those parameters from?

Is 'recent' defined in either David's dictionary as 'in the past two or three years'?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This one cracks me up about Melvin Harris:

"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."

The ONLY person to examine the diary within six months of April 1992 was Baxendale.

And when was the next solubility test conducted on the diary? It's not ever clear if anyone ever did one, certainly not within a year or six months of the ink drying.

I don't know what cracked David up about Melvin's words, unless he just thought he was spouting hot air - which is of course quite possible.

But Melvin was clearly saying that the diary ink had resisted dating because it had already dried and stabilised on the paper by the time Baxendale had a first crack at it, making it six months old at the very least by then, and more probably a year or more. In short, had the writing been a mere babe of two months when Baxendale conducted his famous solubility test, he should have been able to date it - not just to 'the last two or three years', but to the last two or three months.

It was Baxendale, by the way, who took steps to prevent Robert Smith from publishing his reports containing the two major errors he made concerning the history of nigrosine and the presence of iron in the ink. Robert advised the Sunday Times to approach Baxendale directly for sight of everything, but the newspaper predictably only reported what suited their agenda at the time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Then when I ask what it all means I read something bafflingly incomprehensible about the hoaxer having to remove all incidental scratches - but I don't know why he can't just leave them there, if there were any there in the first place.

I don't know why either, but it's not my problem. We know a hoaxer in 1993 must have removed the several visible scratch marks Murphy tried to buff out, before work began on the Maybrick/ripper engravings, unless Murphy was lying through his teeth about them. If Murphy did see 'several scratch marks' on that inner surface in 1992, and saw no change there when he was next shown the watch in 1993, there is no way those same scratch marks would have escaped the beady eye of the electron microscope and resisted its power to determine whether they were made before or after the Maybrick/ripper engravings.

I hope that's clearer now.

All I know is that anyone who desperately wants the watch to have come out of Battlecrease in March 1992 absolutely 100% NEEDS not only both the Murphys to have repeatedly lied about their knowledge of the watch but also their poor elderly father (or father-in-law) suffering from dementia to have told the same lie. How they managed to rope him into the conspiracy I have no idea.

Well that's okay then. I know of nobody who needs the watch to have come out of Battlecrease in 1992, never mind 'desperately', 'absolutely' or '100%'. It's only a wonder that David didn't say '110%' like so many do these days when trying to make more of something than it deserves.

I do know of someone, however, who seems to be rather keen for it to have come to Murphy with no visible scratch marks at all and no reason for him to have whipped out the jeweller's rouge.

I also know how Anne might have roped her own frail elderly father, Billy Graham, into supporting a false 'in the family' story, just a few months before he died. Same way, I imagine, that Mike and Anne were able to rope young Caroline into supporting their 'dead pal' story. Two innocent parties, two loving family members, with no reason to think they were being led along.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This is a post for the children's section of the forum...

...In fact, one could argue that selling a watch worth £295 of £275 for £225 shows that Murphy was desperate to get rid of it...

One could indeed. What would that make it? Too hot to handle?

...In any event, to argue that he couldn't possibly have left a broken watch in a drawer for a few years because it was so amazingly valuable (at less than £300!!!) is not an argument that the adults need to bother with.

It's not an argument that was ever made either. I'm quite happy for old Mr Stewart to have taken it off a stranger's hands back in the early 80s - if that's what happened.

So no, the adults need not bother with David's petulant post.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Oh what a tangle the world's leading expert on the watch has got herself into.

The watch's previous owner, we are told, could have stepped forward at any time and that would have spelt disaster for the hoaxer.

But what about Ron Murphy the jeweller? Doesn’t exactly the same apply to him if he's been lying about it being purchased by his father 10 or 15 years earlier? He would have had a bit of explaining to do when the previous owner stepped forward and said "Hey, I only sold that watch to Murphy last year!!!!"

So why doesn't the same thinking apply to Murphy who, we are told, despite having had no reason to believe it was stolen, lied through his teeth about when he acquired the watch?

Whoever sold the watch to a member of the Murphy/Stewart family was said to be a stranger, 'a little man', who came into the shop one day and 'requested a sum of money', which was refused 'and the man left instantly'. There was 'an instant change of heart', the man was recalled by the jeweller in question and the transaction was concluded - no questions asked or answered. I can't really see that Murphy would have been too worried that this 'little man' would return to argue the toss about when this had happened.

In respect of the hoaxer, as far as I am concerned, we just go back to the same point I have made time and time about risk. There is always a risk to every criminal enterprise. In this case, it seems minimal not only because of the unlikelihood of someone being able to identify that particular watch (i.e. you'd have to know quite a lot of details about it to know it was one you had owned) but because even if the owner did come forward (to say what? was there ever a national appeal for him/her to do so?) how would he or she have known whether there were any scratches on the inside of it?

It's not the scratches that would be the problem. It's the large ornate JO on the back outside cover, which could have been recognised by someone. The book was a best seller, and a bandwagon hoaxer was anticipating it would be, so the JO could have rung bells. Whoever JO was could have been the original owner, and the watch could have been kept in the family and passed down, miles from Liverpool and the Maybricks. Murphy knew the circumstances by which he obtained it, but a bandwagon hoaxer in 1993 couldn't have known, even if they knew when and where Albert had acquired it.

But let's assume that the previous owner of the watch did come forward and said that the watch had been in his non-Maybrick family since 1846 - well then that would have been the end of the hoax. It's as simple as that. Why is that difficult to understand?

It's not. But it never happened, did it? Both JO's watch and the guardbook have resisted being recognised by anyone who had previously owned or handled either, from Victorian times right up to 1992, when we know Albert saw the former in Murphy's window and when we know Doreen saw the latter in her office. In both cases we appear to have an unknown number of suspected hoax conspirators, who took no apparent precautions about the two genuinely Victorian items they used and were just lucky.

That's fine. Must happen all the time in criminal circles. You win some, you lose some.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So we are told that "Mike could simply have said to Feldman: "Ask this electrician of yours to describe the diary he says he took, and what's in it. If he can't do it, you'll know he's talking bollocks and the diary never came from that house".

Well Feldman, had he wanted to, could himself have asked the electrician to describe the diary. Why should Mike be suggesting cross-examination type questions to Feldman for Feldman to ask the electrician? And why is Mike Barrett, whose behaviour, we are told, was never "particularly rational", suddenly to be imbued with the qualities of a professional advocate?

Because it would have taken Mike all of ten seconds to point out to Feldman why this electrician, who [according to David's theory] had never met Mike nor set eyes on his forged diary, must be full of it. Certainly less time than it would have taken to jot down this electrician's name and address [assuming Feldy had got more than just a phone number from Jim Bowling], then walk down to Fountains Road to have it out with this stranger in person.

Mike's response to Feldman with its use of blunt industrial, Anglo-Saxon, expletive language seems to me to have been a perfectly adequate response to the proposal. He didn't need to suggest cross-examination questions to Feldman. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

But Mike could have made that response without the bother of threatening this stranger, simply on the basis of knowing that his 'confession' would be worthless to Feldy the minute Feldy himself began asking what he actually knew about the physical book.

David is the one complicating things here.

There's only one possible reason for Mike to have needed to go round to Eddie's and threaten him with solicitors, and that is if he could have substantiated the 'confession', which Feldy was expecting to get out of him. Mike knew that Feldman had money to throw at this. Why was he so worried that Eddie would produce the goods, if he didn't have any?

There's no documentary evidence that Feldy was ever given Eddie's Fountains Road address. He had to get a phone number for him from Jim Bowling, his workmate. "He drinks at the Saddle and lives round the corner", is all Feldy says Jim told him. So the whole thing collapses if Feldy couldn't have told Mike where he could find Eddie, because Mike must have known where he was living at the time. And within a very short time of this confrontation Eddie was chummy enough with Mike to agree to see him in the Saddle and meet Robert Smith.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hi caz. The questions you are asking about Anne and the red diary really hinge on Keith's skill as an interviewer. Strange to say, your post seems to suggest that you don’t have any faith in his abilities, which can't be your intention. Either that, or you are failing to put yourself in Anne's shoes.

According to Mike, Anne Graham requested the return of the red diary **before** his January 1995 affidavit/confession. It was certainly found in her possession a short time later. This ought to give you plenty of reason to reflect. Indeed, to face the reality of it. At some point in late 1994, when Mike went “off-message,” Anne remembered the red diary, and, realizing that it might be damaging, went to fetch it back. That Mike gave it to her is confirmation of what I have been howling for 15 years: Barrett was emotionally conflicted--he didn't know what to do; to be or not to be---to confess or not to confess--to derail or not to derail---and, in this instance, he caved-in to his estranged wife and ended up giving her the red diary. By his account, she had promised him £20K by the end of the month and allegedly sealed the bargain with what I will call a kiss. Maybe at that moment Mike thought that everything could be nice again. But, in truth, it wasn't nice, and on January 5, 1995 Mr. Mike "Hoodwinked" Barrett signs a sworn affidavit and reveals the red diary's existence. As they say over here in America, Mike took the "nuclear" option. Meanwhile, enter Keith Skinner. Having now learned of the red diary, Keith goes to Anne and asks her about it. Again, put yourself in her shoes. She had very recently retrieved the damaging diary from Barrett, and yet here is some bloke in her living room asking her about it!! OMG. Her jaw must have dropped. Her stomach churned. Her eyes gorged. She looked towards the bathroom door, wondering if she could lock herself inside. How on earth did Keith find out about it? Is Keith now in thick with Mike? Or did he trace the bookseller? Unless Keith is an incompetent interviewer--and I don’t think he is--he wouldn't have telegraphed his source nor would he have told Anne all he knew (or didn't know) about the red diary. Thus Anne could not be certain of what else he may or may not have learned—or would soon learn--so lying outright or claiming it simply did not exist would have been utterly foolish. She was truly over a barrel. No, she had no choice but admit to it and come up with a not-so-spur-of-the-moment, ****-and-bull story that Mike wanted to 'see what a diary looked like'---an obvious fabrication that is still being repeated to this very day.

Anyway, I think you are misreading David Orsam. What I think he is saying is that, forced into the situation, she took a calculated risk and admitted to the purchase of the diary, figuring she could still "explain it away." What she could **not** have known is that Martin Earl's advertisement existed in print and that her story would eventually be debunked when it was shown that Mike (or Anne?) had specifically requested enough blank paper to accommodate the 29 page transcript later found on their word processor. But, of course, Anne's calculated risk failed. Earl's advertisement did exist as this thread demonstrates. It's not that difficult to put together. Regards.

[Sam Flynn]

But you can see why anybody might want to write one of James Maybrick as a pantomime villain committing the murders in Whitechapel, London?

Of course, Caz. However, that's not the impression I get from the diary.

Regarding the poetry, don't you find it odd that a hoaxer would include any, let alone pepper the diary with it, knowing they are not very good at it?

I'm not sure that they were aware of their deficiencies. I'm reminded of the poems sometimes published in my local/community newspapers; no doubt their authors have done their best and are proud of their poems, but many of them are too ghastly for words. Forced or obvious rhymes, poor scansion, and a chronic susceptibility to the "self-imposed did" (cf. "but instead I did flee / and by way showed my glee")

[caz]

I can't see why anybody would want to write a parody of James Maybrick as talentless, stupid and semi-literate, Caz.

But you can see why anybody might want to write one of James Maybrick as a pantomime villain committing the murders in Whitechapel, London?

Regarding the poetry, don't you find it odd that a hoaxer would include any, let alone pepper the diary with it, knowing they are not very good at it? We know this must be the case if they are not deliberately dumbing down, because they have Maybrick acknowledging his own shortcomings in this department to himself in his personal journal. He admits to struggling with the art and trying to do better, as his numerous crossings out also demonstrate beyond doubt. Why would a hoaxer make things ten times harder for themselves like this? I'm crap at drawing. I know I'm crap at drawing. So I would never have included any illustrations in a serious attempt to fake Maybrick's diary because he would then have had to be as crap as me at drawing and admit it. And for all I knew there might have been a body of unpublished work somewhere, showing that while Maybrick was no great shakes at art, he could sketch reasonably well.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But if the red diary had been used but not recognised then how would anyone have ever traced it to Mike Barrett via Martin Earl? It was only because Mike himself mentioned it in his affidavit that Keith Skinner was able to do so, having obtained a private cheque from Anne.

Quite, but I was suggesting it could have been recognised, by its previous owner or whoever had handled it on its journey before it was finally sent to Mr Michael Barrett at his home address. Neither Mike nor Anne could have taken any steps to do anything about that. Had the red diary proved suitable for forgery purposes and had they used it for that purpose they'd have had to trust to luck that nobody in the 'chain' would recognise the thing when it was published and say: "Hey, that diary passed through my hands just a year or two ago and there was nothing in it then!"

For some reason, Anne asked Mike for the red diary she had paid for, and Mike gave it to her. I dare say she would still have provided Keith with the payment details even if Mike had destroyed it or refused to hand it over. If Anne only paid for it, but had no clue about the advert resulting from Mike's initial enquiry, that's certainly not the impression Mike tried to give in his affidavit, where he implied she was the driving force behind its acquisition:

'Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool.'

Mike's aim here was clearly to attribute the purchase, from start to finish, and the reasoning behind it, to Anne. He didn't mention the fact that she only ended up forking out for one of his faux pas, some two months after the event, because he had failed to pay for the goods he had requested. He was lying, wasn't he? Why, if all he needed to say was that Anne paid for the red diary [provable, thanks to Anne's subsequent co-operation], which they had hoped to use for the forgery? But I still submit that Anne took a risk by helping Keith trace the payee and the purchase, if she knew what it had been intended for, but didn't know how Mike had gone about obtaining it, what he had asked for or how many people knew about it. It goes without saying that he was something of a loose cannon, so how could she have been confident, knowing he was behind the red diary's acquisition, that he hadn't left some record behind, through the payee, which could have incriminated them both? If, as David insists, the 'blank pages' detail is incriminating, she'd have been wrong to feel confident, wouldn't she?

Tim Martin-Wright never saw the Diary so he could have had no idea if he had being offered "the same" one by Alan Davies, someone else who had also never seen it, and who, even in Diary Defending World, had no business offering something for sale that he didn’t own and which had supposedly already been sold!

How many diaries by Jack the Ripper did Tim Martin-Wright imagine were floating around in 1992?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Given that even Mike didn't claim to have transcribed the Diary in his Jan 1995 affidavit, its unfathomable why we keep getting told that Mike wrote in a combination of lower and upper case. Sure, he once did claim to have transcribed it but I do not know who is suggesting this today. Seems like a classic case of attacking Mr Straw Man. It's like someone loves arguing the point so much that she just can't let it go even though she is only having the argument with herself.

It's unfathomable why David thinks that just because he may have accepted that Mike could not have penned the diary himself, everyone else must have accepted this too. Nobody - not even John Wheat, Abby Normal, Phil Carter, Trevor Marriott, or anyone lurking but not posting - could possibly still believe that Mike would not have 'admitted' to being the forger [before his solicitor stepped in on his behalf and Anne came out with her 'in the family' story, which was followed by Mike's cunning change of plan, to include her and others in a forgery conspiracy] unless he was the forger.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Nice one Gareth.

Now look for the parody in the diary.

Or do you sense that the author was playing it straight with all those funny little attempts at writing funny little rhymes?

I can't see why anybody would want to write a parody of James Maybrick as talentless, stupid and semi-literate, Caz.

PS: Thanks for smiling at my light-hearted homage to Harry Enfield's "Three Scousers" by the way

[David Orsam]

My argument does not actually rely on Caroline knowing that Tony Devereux had died in the summer of 1991. I have never said she did know (even though one can hardly rule out the possibility). When I refer to the unlikelihood of her confusing "fat Eddie" with "the deceased Tony Devereux" I am stating as a fact that he was dead not that she necessarily knew it.

My point is that it is nonsense to think that Caroline was confusing Eddie with Tony, regardless of who was alive or dead, given the clarity and certainty of her supposed recollection about this. This, for example, is what Harrison tells us:

The next day, Caroline remembers, her Dad went down to Tony’s house and pestered him about the origins of the Diary. How long had he had it? All Tony would say was "You are getting on my Fvcking nerves. I have given it to you because I know it is real and I know you will do something with it.""

It is nonsense to suggest that Caroline could have confused Eddie here with Tony (who was, it so happens, dead in March 1992). There is no inherent flaw in my argument.

[David Orsam]

One thing we simply can't do is guess what Sue Iremonger concluded.

And even worse is when someone who doesn't seem to appreciate that it's not possible for experts to form accurate conclusions about authorship when handwriting has been disguised guesses what Sue Iremonger concluded.