Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[caz]

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.

And I apologised straight afterwards when you corrected me, rj. Unlike some people, who cry like babies and take a fortnight to get over it when their lazy English is corrected.

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.

Considering the watch was bought as an investment for Daisy - Albert and Val's baby granddaughter, why is anyone surprised?

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?

Where does Robert Smith explain that he was referring to Albert and Robbie?

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.

So what, unless you can connect Robbie to the making of the scratches, which, sticking my neck out, I imagine you can't? As you said, there was nothing illegal about the deal with Robert Smith to keep the watch from 'going abroad', like poor old Monty Druitt.

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

Ah well that's that then. He had years to put the scratches in it.

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.

And how about an introductory letter from someone genuinely intrigued and excited by newly discovered markings in a Victorian watch, which very obviously supported this confessional diary supposedly written by the same person? How would that sound, if not exactly the same?

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.

If it really is that simple, it's taking an awful long while for anyone to prove it. What's keeping them? Tim Dundas needn't apply for the post, because he was recalling a completely different watch from the one bought by Albert.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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!

Fine, so you MUST either believe this actually happened or you MUST believe young Caroline had to learn the whole thing off by heart, complete with the deceased Tony telling her Dad he was getting on his "fvcking nerves".

Which is it? Well, given that you clearly can't believe Mike needed to pester Tony while he was alive, about the origins of a diary they were planning to forge, several months before any of the materials would be acquired, the answer MUST be obvious to everyone.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Ah, but then she MUST not have listened properly to the rest of the conversation he had with Tony, because he could not possibly have been asking him, in 1991, about the origins of the guardbook he had just brought home with him, if that didn't happen until the end of March 1992, could he?

So she got the name right, but got the rest of it wrong? Or did she confuse a conversation her Dad had with Tony in 1991, with another conversation he had with someone else, at some other time, when the diary was already in Goldie Street?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Right, except that I don't think anyone mentioned whether it was a recent episode of the show or one they remembered from further back. If someone in my company today brought up a subject - any subject - that caused me to mention something which had featured in a tv programme, it wouldn't have to be a recent one. I may appear to have the attention span of a backward earwig, but I can actually remember stuff I first saw on the 'box' decades ago, and on which programme or show, never mind just a couple of months back.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

But how 'recently seen', David? Has anyone said?

Of course, if you can't remember anything you saw on the tv 'well over a month ago', that might explain why you are having some difficulty with all this.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

People who are reading my posts properly will know that I already explained what I think was going on with Caroline. I did it in #1344 when I quoted Melvin Harris on the subject.

The only point I have been making here is that the theory that young Caroline overheard conversations in March 1992 between her father and another man about the Diary which she thought were conversations between her father and the late Tony Devereux is pure nonsense and does not fit with what Caroline told researchers about those conversations.

[David Orsam]

I am, of course, fully aware that no-one present at the time of the discovery of the scratches has said that they were chatting about a recent edition of Antiques Roadshow which featured gold watches. In fact, I went further and made the point that no-one as far as I know has said they had ever, at any time, seen an Antiques Roadshow feature on gold watches. This was something said by a forum member on the basis of no apparent evidence.

But here is what actually happened.

I referred in #1353 to the "possibility of Albert being set up to bring the watch into work."

In response, I was told sarcastically: "Set up by whom? One of his colleagues then? Or perhaps the Antiques Roadshow people who supposedly triggered the discussion with a feature on gold watches of different carats?"

Now we know that the sarcasm was wholly misplaced. The so-called "trigger" for the conversation does not involve "the Antiques Roadshow people" at all. There is no need to involve the BBC in a conspiracy here. That was my whole point. The discussion about 18 carat gold watches could have been a pretext to induce Albert Johnson to mention and bring into work his own watch.

I am glad it now seems to be accepted that Albert and the others could not possibly have been chatting about a recent edition of Antiques Roadshow so that the discussion between Albert's workmates which occurred in May 1993 about that programme, and about 18 carat gold watches, was initiated for no obvious reason whatsoever, thus being entirely consistent with the theory I have set out.

[David Orsam]

I see that in another thread today the following theory has been falsely attributed to me in a classic "straw man" strategy.

"Seems the only 'expert' we need on this one is David "Awesome" Orsam, who has speculated that one of Albert's colleagues could have 'set him up', presumably by asking him to bring in the gold watch he had mentioned buying the year before, whipping out his tools while a second colleague distracted Albert for ten minutes, so he could open up the back of the watch, prepare the inside surface before putting the marks there and some more random scratch marks on top, finally polishing them all until barely visible and looking suitably old and worn. Then it was just a simple matter of closing the watch, drawing Albert's attention back to it, asking him to open it for the assembled company and to hold it up to the light so the faint scratches could be seen, at which point the hoaxer suggested looking at them under the microscopes in the college lab."

The bit in bold, which is virtually all of it, is nothing I have ever suggested or even hinted at.

I am suggesting that the scratches could have already been placed on the watch and that the "Antiques Roadshow" discussion was part of a deliberate attempt for those scratches to be drawn to Albert's attention so that he would think they had been spotted by chance by someone who was not his own brother.

[John G]

For the person who continually keeps trying to downplay Mike Barrett's journalistic efforts (and, yes, I do mean you John G!) please note that Celebrity was not a "teenage magazine". It was a magazine aimed at adults.

Well, perhaps young adults!

[caz]

Hello Caz,

No, by July 1994, Anne had less to fear from an electrician, if he pinched the diary one morning in March 1992, than she had to fear from Mike if they had spent time forging it together.

Precisely! But that was not the course she took.

Hi Cris,

Sorry, I should have worded that more clearly.

What I meant was that by July 1994 Anne would probably not have been expecting Mike and the diary tea leaf to trash her 'in the family story', even if they could have proved it had been in Paul Dodd's house instead. If it was simply not in their interests to do so, there was little for her fear.

However, if she knew it had never been in either family, because she and Mike had only finished writing it in early April 1992, she'd have been fully expecting him to trash her story with his own: "How we done it together". Yet it doesn't appear to have dawned on her that he might do this, or that he could do it - even though the previous month he had told the world he had forged it.

The course she took was to try and keep the original 'dead pal' story alive and kicking by providing a much needed explanation for what Tony Devereux was doing with the diary in 1991 and why he gave it to Mike. She was banking on nobody being both able and willing to disprove it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's a funny thing. The Diary Defenders normally love to find meaning in coincidences of timing yet the coincidence that scratches on a watch showing Maybrick to have been Jack the Ripper were noticed for the first time only 2 or 3 weeks after the newspapers had reported of the existence of a Jack the Ripper diary suposedly written by Maybrick doesn't seem to interest them at all.

Don't be daft, David. Of course it does. But it has to be weighed against everything else, including the 'coincidence' of the Murphys suddenly deciding they may as well sell the valuable gold watch they had lying around doing nothing, at about the same time Mike was trying to get a publisher for the diary. It is that supposed coincidence, which allowed for everything else that followed. It's predictable that you brush that one aside as if it can have no possible significance. Don't mind me if I prefer to keep it on my 'not so easy to explain away' list.

I thought my post on the subject at #1353 was very clear but for those with comprehension difficulties I was suggesting the possibility that Albert's lovely brother took the watch out of the drawer without Albert's knowledge, had the scratches placed on it by someone who made efforts to artificially age them, then put the watch back in the drawer and then arranged for one of Albert's work colleagues who was in on the scam to mention the subject of gold watches on a pretext so that Albert would bring the watch into work where the scratches would be spotted and drawn to Albert's attention by that colleague and then examined by using the powerful microscope in the Science and Technology block of the college in which Albert worked.

Blimey, quite a lot of evidence required for this one to work, including how Robbie found out in the first place that his brother had a gold watch sitting in a drawer in his home. Albert said he never mentioned it to him until after the discovery was made. I wonder when Robbie is meant to have had the means and opportunity to rummage secretly through Albert and Val's drawers, happen to see this valuable watch in one of them, and immediately think to himself: "Ooh, they'll never notice if I 'borrow' this little beauty for a while. It's just given me a great idea for a funny little trick I can play on them and a nice little earner for yours truly. Now all I need to do is get friendlier with Albert's workmates than they are with him, and hope one will be willing and able to come over to the dark side and set the silly bugger up. What a hoot". Or did he leave the watch in the drawer to begin with, while formulating his cunning plan at leisure, then go back and whip it out when he had a second opportunity, so it wouldn't be gone long enough for anyone to miss it?

As for what the jeweller said about the scratches, he did NOT say in his statement that he didn't take notice "of what they represented" (classic sleight of hand), he said "they were not markings I would have taken notice of" full stop.

But because he believed them to be the same markings he was shown a year later, they were still not markings he'd have taken notice of, had Albert not returned and invited him to do so.

But if he had already attempted to remove them then he must have "taken notice" of them. And if he had attempted to remove them then he wouldn't be "almost certain" that they were present when the watch was sold, he would have been absolutely certain, otherwise what was he trying to remove?

You surely must know by now, just by reading mine and other people's posts here, that they do not always express themselves as well or as precisely as you think they should, and indeed you never seem to miss a chance for pointing out an apparent contradiction. So it beats me how you can point out a contradiction in Murphy's account while at the same time insisting that when he said "they were not markings I would have taken notice of" [full stop] he was expressing himself with 100% precision and would not have clarified this in any way or changed a single word, had he been asked at the time how he could have tried to polish out markings without noticing they were there. In your black and white world, he couldn't possibly have meant "Of course I noticed them because I tried to polish them out, didn't I, you stupid.... They just weren't - and aren't - the kind of markings I'd have taken particular notice of, in the sense of trying to make out words or letters. You can see for yourself just how faint they are. They still look like random scratches, which is how they looked in 1992 and explains why I tried to polish them out, not realising there was any more to them".

Thing is, until now there was no reason to suspect the jeweller of dishonesty but we are told by the Diary Defenders, who know everything, that this jeweller was a man who dealt in stolen goods and lied about provenance. Wouldn't that kind of man have been happy to go along with a fake story about some scratches for a few quid when speaking to a researcher? But then when asked to put the story into a written statement he might not have wanted to be too positive about it. We are told that both Albert and Robbie went to speak to the jeweller alone with no witnesses. Who knows what was said in those conversations?

I think I may be the only one to speculate that the watch was not left gathering dust for years in the jewellers shop, but was put on sale soon after someone had brought it in. I have never claimed that Murphy would have known the watch was dodgy; only that he might naturally have been worried when Albert and Robbie came back to pester him with questions about it and its history, if he had no answers because it was bought on trust from a stranger.

I note that it's all right for you to argue, on the one hand, that Murphy's statement was contradictory and can be disregarded as unreliable, and on the other that he could have been in on a scam by Albert and Robbie, and lying for them both in return for a few quid, obliging you to explain why he then made this contradictory and ultimately unhelpful [in your view] statement! Either way, you are not doing Murphy any more favours than I am.

So in future, let's have less of this attitude that suspecting the diary and watch were stolen is somehow much more heinous than accusing certain individuals [some of whom are beyond defending themselves] of forging them. You may protest that you haven't accused anyone in so many words, but if others have been provoked into doing so by reading your posts, you don't seem too bothered about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Well, perhaps young adults!

Nope, still not right.

[David Orsam]

Is there actually a coincidence of the Murphys suddenly deciding they may as well sell the "valuable" gold watch they had lying around doing nothing at about the same time Mike was trying to get a publisher for the diary? Not as far as I am aware. On what date did they decide to sell the "valuable" (i.e. a few hundred quid at most) watch that they had lying around doing nothing? January 1992? February 1992? Not much of a coincidence if it was before the supposed Battlecrease discovery.

The explanation as to why it was not sold by Ron Murphy as soon as he received it from his father-in-law is to be found in his statement, i.e. "it did not work". You don’t sell a watch that doesn’t work. That is precisely why it went to Dundas for repair.

There really is nothing that is not easy to explain in a jeweller getting a not terribly valuable watch fixed and then putting it on sale.

Unless of course you think everyone is telling lies about everything, well then of course you create your own mystery which surprise, surprise, you can’t explain!

[David Orsam]

So the point is made again as to how Robbie could possibly have known about the watch if Albert didn’t tell him about it.

Well a child of six could work that one out. Albert told another family member who then told Robbie.

My goodness that wasn’t difficult.

And that’s if the Blessed Albert was even telling the truth about not mentioning the watch to Robbie. One could easily imagine that Albert was being protective of his brother; if he thought that researchers suspected Robbie of being involved in a scam he could easily have told a little white lie to protect him by saying that Robbie didn’t know about the watch. Even saints can tell white lies can’t they?

And that of course is if Albert did actually say that he didn’t tell his brother. As to that, it’s been stated as a fact on more than one occasion but no supporting evidence or source has been provided. This is part of a repeated pattern of which I have complained time and time again where things are being stated as facts without proper evidential support.

[David Orsam]

One can only interpret a statement on the basis of the words used. Murphy did not say that "they were not markings I would have taken notice of what they represented” as one forum member has tried to suggest by adding words not used in the sentence. He said he did not take notice of them. Perhaps he meant something else but that’s not what he said. Indeed, we’ve already been told that the scratches were not visible to the naked eye so how did he even see them in the first place?

He doesn’t actually say in his statement that he tried to polish them out. That is something said by a writer an article and I haven’t seen an original quote from Murphy. If he HAD tried to polish them out then my point is that he would not be “almost certain” they were there he would have been absolutely certain because otherwise what was he trying to polish out? This has not been answered.

Given that I don't believe that the "Ripper" or "Maybrick" markings were on the watch prior to it coming into Albert's possession I am fully entitled to question the evidence on which such a claim is based.