25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the fact that P&R had worked at the house before prior to '92 is very interesting, as is the fact that an employee who worked there was living in the same street as Tony Devereux and drinking in the same pub as Mike Barrett.

This is why I think Robinson should've looked into all of the transactions between Dodd and P&R, including the dates for the initial contact between them regarding specific jobs. That's what a serious researcher would've done.

I think it could be likely that Rigby could've brought up the fact that he'd worked/was working at Battlecrease: maybe a you'll never guess where I'm working... kind of thing.

I don't pretend to know when any story or ideas were concocted, but I find the whole thing more than a little sketchy.

Some of the info about 'earlier' events is a bit vague Mike. I'm looking at the book as I type and apparently Dodd said that he'd had New night storage heaters installed in 1988 or 89. Work was actually done on the ground floor in 1989 but Dodd told SH that a storage heater was installed in his first floor flat in late summer 1991 and that had involved taking up the floorboards in the Maybrick room.

I need to re-read this and I'm a bit tired but what I don't understand is why Smith says that no electrical work was done st Battlecrease for 6 months prior to 9th March '92. Thus eliminating an earlier date for re-wiring on the first floor. But if Dodd says that re-wiring was done in late summer '91 that's just over 6 months so why doesn't Smith consider it possible that the late summer date could have been when the diary was taken?

[Mike J. G.]

Some of the info about 'earlier' events is a bit vague Mike. I'm looking at the book as I type and apparently Dodd said that he'd had New night storage heaters installed in 1988 or 89. Work was actually done on the ground floor in 1989 but Dodd told SH that a storage heater was installed in his first floor flat in late summer 1991 and that had involved taking up the floorboards in the Maybrick room.

I need to re-read this and I'm a bit tired but what I don't understand is why Smith says that no electrical work was done st Battlecrease for 6 months prior to 9th March '92. Thus eliminating an earlier date for re-wiring on the first floor. But if Dodd says that re-wiring was done in late summer '91 that's just over 6 months so why doesn't Smith consider it possible that the late summer date could have been when the diary was taken?

I think it was Steven Owl who mentioned that he'd read that there had been work done at the house by P&R before, which I'd had an idea was likely to be true enough.

I don't really get it, either, tbh, Herlock.

If they were there around late July/August '91, then that means that the whole provenance story for the 9th of March is a bit presumptuous. Then there's the fact that the electrician had also apparently given a date of 1989.

Either, there were a few jobs on the house by P&R between 89-92, or someone's telling porkies.

I don't see how someone could confuse 1989 with 1992, unless they were very very high, lol.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, it's always easy to forget about that old chestnut. Is there any mention of this in the new book?

There's a couple of pages Mike. Briefly:

2 eminent metallurgy specialists from from 2 of the uk's most prestigious universities declared the engravings to be 'at least several decades old.'

The signature 'somewhat' resembles Maybrick's signature on his marriage licence.

One of the scientists said 'Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least several tens of years of age...in my opinion it is unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings.'
In a phone call the the above scientist (Wild) he was happy to confirm that they could date from 1888.

From what I've read, and obviously others will know far more than me, it appears that the scientific results for the watch are difficult to dispute. Others might have different info though.

This is nothing new of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it was Steven Owl who mentioned that he'd read that there had been work done at the house by P&R before, which I'd had an idea was likely to be true enough.

I don't really get it, either, tbh, Herlock.

If they were there around late July/August '91, then that means that the whole provenance story for the 9th of March is a bit presumptuous. Then there's the fact that the electrician had also apparently given a date of 1989.

Either, there were a few jobs on the house by P&R between 89-92, or someone's telling porkies.

I don't see how someone could confuse 1989 with 1992, unless they were very very high, lol.

I wonder if P&R still have records going further back? I assume that they'd have to have? They need to be produced for a clearer picture. It's ok having time sheets to prove that they were there on the day in question but it seems any suggestions prior to that are on a word-of-mouth basis. And conflicting ones at that.

[Sam Flynn]

From what I've read, and obviously others will know far more than me, it appears that the scientific results for the watch are difficult to dispute. Others might have different info though.

Any artefact with "I am Jack" scratched into it has to raise alarm-bells.

[Abby Normal]

Any artefact with "I am Jack" scratched into it has to raise alarm-bells.

Exactly.

If anything if authentic, the killer might have signed Jack the Ripper, or jack etc.

But I am jack!?! Cmon

[Mike J. G.]

There's a couple of pages Mike. Briefly:

2 eminent metallurgy specialists from from 2 of the uk's most prestigious universities declared the engravings to be 'at least several decades old.'

The signature 'somewhat' resembles Maybrick's signature on his marriage licence.

One of the scientists said 'Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least several tens of years of age...in my opinion it is unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings.'
In a phone call the the above scientist (Wild) he was happy to confirm that they could date from 1888.

From what I've read, and obviously others will know far more than me, it appears that the scientific results for the watch are difficult to dispute. Others might have different info though.

This is nothing new of course.

Cheers for that. Yeah, I think I've pretty much heard that that was the case, although, perhaps rather unsurprisingly, I find it hard to believe that it would be overly difficult to make engravings appear older than they are, and I recall reading something to that effect from the man doing the test, who said it would take time and effort, but it could be done. I think the problem is that there seems to be an opinion from him that nobody would bother to go to such effort, which we know is a bit presumptuous, as people will go to any length they deem possible in order to make something work.

[Mike J. G.]

I wonder if P&R still have records going further back? I assume that they'd have to have? They need to be produced for a clearer picture. It's ok having time sheets to prove that they were there on the day in question but it seems any suggestions prior to that are on a word-of-mouth basis. And conflicting ones at that.

This was something a couple of us were discussing the other night. P&R had been in Garston for a long time, so I'm not certain how their records were stored, and I can't seem to find out if this was a branch of a larger company or not.

There is a bunch of other companies bearing that name in the UK, but I can't figure out if they're associated or not. From what I've learned, the P&R in question was a family-run business that had been with the same family since 1914, and the building was sold recently when the former owner retired.

I'm guessing that they would've likely had records from the late 80's, if they still had them from the early 90's when Robinson checked. I have no idea why Robinson never thought to check other possible transactions between Dodd and P&R.

[Mike J. G.]

Any artefact with "I am Jack" scratched into it has to raise alarm-bells.

It is a bit convenient. It's basically giving the impression that it was done to make sure nobody could mistake the intention behind the watch.

A bit like the diary ending with a signature for the character of the killer.

I guess the diary ending with the JtR line could be explained away as an ironic nod to the media's name for him, but the watch having "I am Jack" is a bit much, almost like the person was wondering if people would get it or not.

[Mike J. G.]

Exactly.

If anything if authentic, the killer might have signed Jack the Ripper, or jack etc.

But I am jack!?! Cmon

I've always wondered whether a killer would want to be given a name or not, and if he would go with that name or if he'd reject it.

If the killer has an ego, does he want to be given a name by other people? Or does he want to play by his own game and call his own shots?

This is a real problem with the entire JtR saga, in everyones quest to profile him, they do so by taking into account all of the associated details, such as the letters, graffito, accepted murders, etc.

We don't know if he wrote any letters, and we don't know who he actually killed, whether he communicated with anyone via writing on a wall, or anything else with too much certainty.

Profiling this killer is in fact rather tricky.

We can go on M.O. and we can match the kills that match the M.O. but other than that, it's hard to be certain of anything.

I've always wondered whether the killer(s?) liked the name of JtR or not. If you've got an egotistical and warped individual, he may think such a name is beneath him, whereas if you have a bit of hopeless character only in it for the killing, he may not care, and might quite fancy the name, as he couldn't have come up with anything better for himself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers for that. Yeah, I think I've pretty much heard that that was the case, although, perhaps rather unsurprisingly, I find it hard to believe that it would be overly difficult to make engravings appear older than they are, and I recall reading something to that effect from the man doing the test, who said it would take time and effort, but it could be done. I think the problem is that there seems to be an opinion from him that nobody would bother to go to such effort, which we know is a bit presumptuous, as people will go to any length they deem possible in order to make something work.

I know nothing about it but I think that it's perhaps not so much the engravings but the evidence of the brass cutting tool embedded in the grooves and the difficulty of recreating those.

[Abby Normal]

Does maybrick the ripper say anything about the dear boss letter?

[StevenOwl]

Does maybrick the ripper say anything about the dear boss letter?

I think it's pretty much accepted that the Diarist claims ownership of Dear Boss with the line "I'll send central another..." or something along those lines. He also refers to giving himself the nickname JTR.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're right Stephen. The diarist is definately claiming ownership of the letters. He also mentions giving a name but doesn't specifically say Jack the Ripper until the very last line.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly.

If anything if authentic, the killer might have signed Jack the Ripper, or jack etc.

But I am jack!?! Cmon

Hi Abby,

I suppose that it could be argued that he settled on just writing 'Jack' because of the limited space on the watch surface. Also it would be more difficult 'scratching' words than writing them with a pen so maybe the fewer words the better?

Just a possibility....