Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Abby Normal]

I had sincerely thought that this Diary had been chucked on the fire 130 years ago.

Busy Beaver

didnt you mean 30 years ago? ; )

[caz]

One thing I have not done is misunderstand what Shirley wrote. I will repeat it here:

"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.""

If Caroline remembered her dad going to Tony's house AND pestering him about the origins of the Diary she must have gone with her dad to Tony's house because how else would she have known about the pestering?

This is still not right, David. Caroline didn't say she remembered her Dad ever taking her down to Tony's house with him. She said she remembered her Dad going down there. But if you are going to take Shirley's use of 'and' literally, to mean Caroline must have remembered, or at least was claiming to have remembered, the actual pestering too, including the f word, be my guest. I'll let you reconcile that with Caroline being expected to go along with this well-rehearsed family tale, including having to learn by heart the "fvcking nerves" detail of a made up conversation at the tender age of eleven.

As for whether she or Mike was the source of the quote "You are getting on my Fvcking nerves" it reads as if the source was Caroline...

And herein lies your problem, David, whether it was or wasn't. If it was, she must have been 'rehearsed' to repeat those words to Shirley, because you don't believe any more than I do that Tony ever said them; if the source was good old Mike, you're basically buggered.

Harrison continues:

"Caroline remembers clearly how her Dad continued to pester Tony for information on the telephone."

When I say "so that's that" I mean that the theory that such conversations really did take place but that Caroline somehow confused Tony Devereux for Eddie Lyons is dead in the water.

Or so you hope.

Unless Caroline hopped from Goldie Street to Fountains Road while her Dad was still pestering Tony on the phone about the diary, it's hard to say how she could have known for certain who was on the other end. Not quite as hard, however, as working out how she is supposed to have remembered 'clearly' any such conversations at all, with the guardbook already in Goldie Street, grinning up at them and waiting for a tasty supper of Quink, no pestering required.

If Caroline was 11 in 1992 she will be 36 or 37 now and, believe it or not, adults in their late 30s think very differently to pre-teenage girls so she might just be perfectly happy to spill the beans now about everything she remembers about the diary. Until she is asked directly we will not know.

Agreed. Let's hope she does remember and is willing to reveal all about the time Daddy and Mummy had the fvcking nerve to get her to swear for Shirley.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As I have also said repeatedly, there were not many Victorian diaries easily available so the forger had to make do with whatever he could find, as we see by the fact that a photograph album was used and a number of pages needed to be cut out, both of which issues would ensure that no sensible person would think it was a genuine diary. Fortunately, the forger did not need to rely on people being sensible.

I don't think our hoaxer cared less about 'sensible' people, David. I look at this the other way round. Put yourself in the hoaxer's shoes, faking the secret thoughts of a murderer, who wants to keep them secret until, on his death bed, he fancies the idea of revealing them - warts and all - to the world at large. What do you, as the hoaxer, think the murderer should use? Something that anyone getting a glimpse of it would instantly recognise as his private diary? Or something where 'no sensible person' would expect to find any such thing?

While we're on the subject, here's another one. You are meant to be writing the secret thoughts of a murderer, writing purely for his own gratification in his own secret diary, cunningly disguised as a scrapbook. Only when your murderer is about to shuffle off do you have him think it would be fun to leave it behind so it can be read by the sensible, the 'none-to-bright' [sorry, Gareth] and the extremely silly. So what do you do? Have Jim ask Florie to proofread the whole thing, correcting all the lazy mistakes in spelling and grammar he had made as a consequence of writing only for himself, such as 'the courage alludes me'? [Sorry if that touched another nerve, rj.] Or do you have Jim leave it as it is, safe in the certain knowledge that in 2018 people will think nothing of hitting the 'submit' button without bothering to check back over their own spelling and grammar within the time allowed for editing their own work?

I suppose it's okay to have "Sir Jim" secretly boast about murdering several women, but quite disturbing that he didn't have the common decency to use a perfectly recognisable diary and proper English before submitting his work to public scrutiny. I'll have to remember this when faking Boris Johnson's address book, complete with all his Russian friends.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

What should touch a lot of nerves, dear caz, is you telling this forum that Albert Johnson "never made a penny" off the watch, when, in fact, he received a nifty £3000 from Robert Smith for the rights, without, of course, relinquishing ownership.

Meanwhile, in Robert Smith's letter to Montgomery he writes: "we should think of ways to encourage the Johnsons not to sell."

Note the plural. The Johnsons.

If it is "lowering the tone" to mention Robbie Johnson, is Smith similarly "lowering the tone" by his use of the plural? In other words, including Robbie in these negotiations?

And why does Feldman constantly refer to Richard Nicholas as the Johnsons' solicitor?

That pesky tone-lowering plural again.

The fact is, Robbie was up to his armpits in peddling this watch, and he netted a nice little £3000 for his brother.

He also told two verifiable lies about the watch, and was telling Feldman it had been in the family for years!

Meanwhile, let's look at Albert Johnson's initial letter to Robert Smith. "I am sure if it proved genuine it would help the sale of your forthcoming book."

Hmmm. I don't know what the introductory letter of a "bandwagon hoax" would sound like, but this might be a pretty good prototype.

Enter Tim Dundas.

"Marks on this watch relating to "Jack the Ripper" have been made on the watch since I examined and repaired it in 1992." --Timothy Dundas, The Clock Workshop, 4 Grange Road, Kirby, Wirral, in a sworn affidavit, 3 July, 1996.

Sorry caz, you're being fleeced. It's really that simple.

[Graham]

Meanwhile, in Robert Smith's letter to Montgomery he writes: "we should think of ways to encourage the Johnsons not to sell."

Note the plural. The Johnsons.

He could have meant Albert Johnson and his wife.....couldn't he?

Graham

[David Orsam]

Oh boy, this has got to be the quote of the day: "But if you are going to take Shirley's use of 'and' literally..."

It wasn't so long ago that it was being suggested that I had "misread" what Shirley wrote. Now I am being told that I am reading what she wrote "literally", in other words to mean exactly what she was literally saying!!!

You really don't need to be a professor of English to interpret this sentence:

"The next day, Caroline remembers, her Dad went down to Tony’s house and pestered him about the origins of the Diary."

The meaning of this sentence, literally or any other way you like, is that Caroline remembered her father going to Tony's house and pestering him about the origins of the Diary.

If Caroline remembered her father going to Tony's house and pestering him then she simply MUST have been with her father in Tony's house at the time otherwise she could have had no memory of the pestering. It's utterly irrelevant whether she remembered any swearing and/or told Shirley of the swearing because Shirley literally tells us that she remembers the pestering!

[David Orsam]

I tell you what, though, it's hard to say how Caroline could have known for certain who was on the other end telephone. I mean, it's a real mystery how she could have known her father was speaking to Tony Devereux.

Oh hold on, actually, no it isn't. Because if the first words her father said on the telephone were "Hello Tony" she would actually have known for certain who was on the other end of the telephone.

[David Orsam]

How foolish of me not to have considered whether the "Antiques Roadshow people" triggered the discussion which led to the discovery of the scratches with "a feature on gold watches of different carats."

Well was there such a feature? I've never seen it stated in terms by any witness to the discussion. All we have in Harrison is one of Albert's colleagues saying, "It all stemmed from the Antiques Road Show...we were talking about gold". No mention there of anything about gold actually being featured on the Antiques Roadshow (but we are not told what was said by Albert's colleague between the dots).

When summarising Albert's story, Feldman doesn't mention anything about the Antiques Roadshow. He just says: "Albert told his colleagues that he owned a Victorian gold watch and shortly afterwards took it into work to show them."

According to Inside Story, Albert mentioned the watch to colleagues at work "during a discussion about watches".

The world's leading expert on the subject, Caroline Brown, however, posted on JTR Forums on 29th August 2012:

"The story goes that following a conversation at work about an Antiques Roadshow which featured gold watches, Albert took his example in to show his colleagues that it was made in 18ct gold."

But where is the evidence that the Antiques Roadshow in question featured any gold watches?

And more importantly WHEN did this programme broadcast?

It's obviously too much to ask to be told the actual date on which the scratches on the watch were first seen. I can't find that date mentioned anywhere, although presumably it was shortly before Albert contacted Robert Smith on 3 June 1993.

But the fact of the matter is that the last episode of the 1993 series of Antiques Roadshow (which happened to be the 150th edition) was broadcast on BBC1 at 5.25pm on Sunday, 21 March 1993. It was followed by a special edition broadcast on the same channel at 5.25pm on Sunday, 28 March 1993. There were no more broadcasts of this programme after that date, prior to 3 June 1993.

If, therefore, someone did actually claim to have seen a feature on gold watches on the Antiques Roadshow at some point in the weeks prior to 3 June 1993, or indeed any episode of Antiques Roadshow in that period, they cannot possibly have been telling the truth.

[rjpalmer]

David - You probably noticed this, but before Albert Johnson even contacted Robert Smith he gave an interview to the Liverpool Daily Post. I've never been able to get a copy of the article, but it looks like it probably appeared on May 13, 1993 (?). I think Shirley Harrison characterized the tone of the article as "sarcastic," but doesn't quote it. It would be interesting to see Albert's original statement.

[rjpalmer]

He could have meant Albert Johnson and his wife.....couldn't he?

Oh, I somehow doubt it.

"He [Feldman] made contact with Albert Johnson and his brother, Robert, and on 5 July 1993, they, together with their solicitor, Richard Nicholas, brought the watch to Feldman's house in Hertfordshire for his inspection." --Richard Whittington-Egan.

This innocent, honest man with no profit motive goes to Feldman's house to show him the watch for the first time and he brings his solicitor and his dodgy brother?

What's wrong with that picture?

[David Orsam]

David - You probably noticed this, but before Albert Johnson even contacted Robert Smith he gave an interview to the Liverpool Daily Post. I've never been able to get a copy of the article, but it looks like it probably appeared on May 13, 1993 (?). I think Shirley Harrison characterized the tone of the article as "sarcastic," but doesn't quote it. It would be interesting to see Albert's original statement.

One thing is for certain RJ, the discovery of the scratches had to have been on a day after 22 April 1993 for, on the day of the discovery, one of Johnson's colleagues said they had read the stories in the Liverpool Daily Post about Maybrick's Diary (which ran from 22-27 April 1993). And one gets the impression it must have been at least a few weeks after that time due to that man's vague memory of the story. If the discovery was shortly before 13 May 1993 then there had been no edition of Antiques Roadshow on television for well over a month before the discovery.

So it was absolutely impossible for them to have been chatting about a recently seen television programme which led Albert to bring the watch in.

[caz]

"You have two one-off instances, with the clearest possible connection to Maybrick and his place of death, not only in the same century, decade, year, month or week, but on the one day in March 1992."

I stand by the above statement of mine, David, although unlike some I am still capable of being flexible in my thinking, so some days I may feel certain of one thing, and at other times less certain, often depending on what others have posted, which I always try to take on board. I can see no earthly point in joining in a debate, if one's own mind is so utterly incapable of moving even slightly away from an idée fixe that every single post just trots out precisely the same thinking no matter what. I suggest you get used to this 'flaw' of mine, or you'll be spending the rest of your waking life gleefully pouncing on examples from the last twenty years where I have expressed one thought on one occasion and something else on another.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I see that someone is trying to play a confidence trick on the members of this forum to pretend that "I seen" is in some way specifically identifiable with Liverpool as opposed to any other part of the country. It is most certainly not. No evidence whatsoever is offered to link the expression to Liverpudlians (to which is added "and other northerners") other than some kind of personal experience, as if this person is an expert in regional dialects.

We are also told by the same person that the expression isn't found in London, i.e. "Not in the London area, it's not".

But let us have some independent evidence on the subject:

Firstly, this is from "A Brief History of Cockney English":

Common Grammatical features of Cockney English include double negatives ("don't need no", "ain't got none"), replacing the words did and saw with seen and done ("I seen/done it", adding questions to the ends of words ("...ain't I?" and "didn't he?), and prepositions like "at" and "to" are often dropped out of sentences.

https://prezi.com/stinee_6pyxf/cockney-english/

This is from an 1895 article entitled "The Cockney and his dialect" by Reginald Pelham Bolton, who states that he was born within the sound of Bow Bells, published in the The Journal of American Folklore:

A little Cockney boy went for his first school outing. “How did you like it?” he was asked. “Werry much,” he replied, “but I didn’t get enough to drink. They gave me milk, but not aat of a clean tin. They squeezed it aat of a nasty caa; I seen ‘em done it myself”.

Examples of "I seen" can be found in two books by Dilly Court, "The Cockney Angel ("then I seen your face") and The Cockney Sparrow ("I seen her hiding") - both my cockney characters - and in Cockney Auction by Carol Rivers about her childhood in the Isle of Dogs when one girl, Doris, says both "we ain't got none" and "I seen Gran".

A song called Psychomodo by the London band Steve Harley and Cockney Rebel contains the following lyrics:

"I seen everything in every shape
I seen 1984 in a terrible state
I seen Quasimodo hanging on my gate"

And one will certainly find "I seen" said by people from Norfolk. I offer just one example from a 1939 book, "The Rabbit Skin Cap; A Tale of a Norfolk Countryman’s Youth" by George Baldry

"we were soon climbing up and down until I seen something running across a path – a rabbit."

The reason why this person is trying to pull the wool over our eyes is because it is essential for her argument that "I seen" is intrinsically and recognisably Liverpudlian otherwise why else would the forger of the diary have deliberately included it in the diary as coming from the pen of James Maybrick?

What is this ugly accusation that I was trying to play 'a confidence trick', David? It is obvious I was talking from my own personal experience, and therefore not claiming to be any more of an 'expert' on regional dialects than anyone else posting here. Their own personal experience may be different from mine, much more extensive, or much less so, but it is what it is. If they have to google "I seen" for documented examples, rather than rely on their own experience, that's great. I maintain that I have now heard this expression used more often, while in the company of Liverpudlians, than in all my years spent in and around London, and now in gorgeous Devon. I can't help that, I just obviously haven't met the right people.

The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason why one would assume that Maybrick, regardless of whether or not he was viewed as "a jumped-up clerk", would write "the whore seen her master". It is perfectly obvious that the error of language is here being made by the forger and reflects the way the forger spoke English. It is nothing to do with the forger attempting to reflect the actual language of James Maybrick because there is absolutely no sensible reason to think that Maybrick would speak or write like that.

As you know, I suspect our hoaxer knew exactly what they were writing and how they wanted the character of "Sir Jim" to come across in his diary. This wasn't the real James Maybrick's voice, was it, any more than it was in the real James Maybrick's hand? The hoaxer was creating a fictional combination of JM the common little nobody and JtR the notorious criminal.

As it happens my current bedtime reading is Jerome K. Jerome's Three Men in a Boat. The other night, in Chapter 7, I read the following words, written in 1889: 'My missis never see you till just this minute'.

This is the usage I have always been more familiar with in the area Jerome was writing about. Of course, it wasn't Jerome himself doing the talking, or making an 'error of language'. He was engaged in painting a comical picture of a thoroughly irritating, none-too-bright fictional character, and chose to make him speak like that to bring him to life.

Love,

Caz
X

[Darryl Kenyon]

All of a sudden after around a hundred years, near the height of the interest in the ripper murders a diary is discovered which makes it obvious that James was the killer. And then around the same time a watch is discovered, or brought into the spotlight which belonged to said person with the victims initials scratched onto it WOW. Can Shirley Harrison by my lottery ticket for me this weekend please.

[caz]

The timesheet evidence was first presented in, I think, September 2017 and we have still seen no evidence that floorboards were not raised in Battlecrease in July 1992.

It has certainly been stated as fact time and time again but never backed up by good evidence.

If Eddie Lyons remembers lifting floorboards in Battlecrease, and the only record we have of him working in Battlecrease is in July 1992, then one interpretation of that evidence is that Eddie did lift floorboards in Battlecrease in July 1992.

Sorry, David, but where is your evidence that any floorboards were lifted in Battlecrease in the July, or during any other work carried out in that house by Portus & Rhodes, apart from during the first floor underfloor wiring job over two days in the March?

The only work charged to Paul Dodd in the July, up to Friday 17th, when Brian recalled Eddie's claim, was done on the ground floor, on 15th, 16th and 17th, where no floorboards needed lifting. Unless you are suggesting that Eddie may have lifted one anyway, and found something there, you have nothing.

Love,

Caz
X