Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

[Graham]

Not really, Graham, probably because we were concentrating on the story of what was happening during the first ten years of the diary and watch being in the public domain.

If bone black was used as an antidote for arsenic poisoning, it will no doubt be put down to another odd little coincidence, because surely if Mike Barrett had known this and put it in the diary to help things along, he'd have said so when making his January 1995 affidavit. That kind of evidence and inside knowledge Anne could not have destroyed or prevented Mike from blabbing about.

[She wrote, dancing round the living room.]

Love,

Caz
X

The only reason I mention the bone black is because, as you say, it's another odd little coincidence. The book in which the Diary is written has bone black in its spine, and Maybrick was an arsenic addict and bone black was a known medication for arsenic poisoning. OK. Unfortunately the writing in the Diary is 99.9% certain not to be James Maybrick's. Plus there are (claimed) anachronisms - however, the biggest catch for me personally is the 'tin matchbox empty' bit. But what the hell. My speculation is that perhaps the 'diary book' used, as is now generally agreed, originally as a photo album, was part of the Maybrick household possessions, and the bone black got into it as he was snorting the stuff while looking at his family photos, or even gumming a few in. And then the photo album is removed from Battlecrease either legitimately or not, and after many adventures (!) ended up in the possession of a currently-unknown someone who thought, 'Hm, I'll use it to forge James Maybrick's Diary and pin the Ripper crimes on him - got nothing else on for a week or so'. Out went the photos, in went the hoax. Could have happened almost at any time, really, but I'd go for a period roughly post WW2. Another thing: are there any extant photos of the Maybricks At Home, their children, their house, garden, possessions, etc? If so, I've never seen any, apart from the portrait photos, that is.

How did Barrett get it, then? I hear you ask. Haven't a clue. Maybe it really did come from Devereux. Maybe it really was behind Anne's wardrobe. Maybe it was found in a junk shop. Who knows? But I'm pretty certain it didn't come from under the floorboards of Battlecrease courtesy of a thirsty electrician who needed a few quid for a pint or several.

Hope you didn't do any damage as you danced round your living-room, Caz!

Graham

[DirectorDave]

I didn't say anything about a "nest of forgers", so that's obviously fake news. Mike named three people who were involved in the conspiracy, including himself, and that may well have been correct. In fact, I seriously doubt that there were lots of individuals involved, as it increases the odds that someone else would have broken ranks by now, and financially everyone's share of the spoils would be seriously diluted.

With "Nest of Forgers" I'm not insinuating a large number of individuals but the sophistication of the conspiracy.

You keep referring to Mike's stroke. However, have you any evidence that, long term, it impacted on his cognitive abilities? In fact, accordingly to one study, the prevalence of post-stroke cognitive impairment, at 3 months and five years, was only around 22%: Douiri et al. 2012.

"One Study"....mmm OK I'll take it....22% that does not sound like an insignificant impairment to me.

You see, we keep coming back to the fact that just about everyone who met Mike after the diary was published concluded that it was unlikely he could have been the author. You reason that this was because of the stroke, but I see little evidence for this. It may be on account of his alcoholism, but that may have been a factor before the diary wss published, further reducing the likelihood that he was the author.

The stroke may be one of the reasons many right Barrett off, but look at John Humble a man probably below the standing of Barrett able to fool the police into going on a wild goose chase and hold the country in terror...did he look any more capable than Barrett?

Alcohol again, OK alcohol prevents Barrett writing it but arsenic enables Maybrick to write it.

Booze and drugs have a long association with the creative arts if they are inhibitors to the creative process there seems to be plenty examples of stuff getting through....the Beatles from Rubber Soul onwards for example.

Moreover, as I keep pointing out, in any conspiracy there would be more reasons than the issue of literacy skills to limit Mike's involvement, i.e. his erratic temperament, and his blabermouth tendency.

Yes I'm saying this was not some eutopic conspiracy where a group of experienced forgers democratically elected a master forger....it was more Steptoe than Shakespeare....they probably come up with the idea watching Lovejoy over a fish supper.

I fail to see how Mike's literary skills limit his involvement....a published journalist in a national magazine, and whether his wife is his proof reader or not is neither here nor there.

The Mike Barrett photoalbum is perhaps a microcosm of the whole Ripper case....a need to see sophistication and design when little are present.

[John G]

I know you didn't say that, I never accused you of saying it, in fact it was me who said it.

You're saying "We can't tell if what Mike Barrett said is true"...I'm saying let's discount all of it.



Yes it's the whole "Mike Barrett couldn't write a sick note" narrative that is a total myth.



Yes.



Yes, but your idea of a conspiracy is a nest of forgers, mine is Mike, Ann and a couple of friends or family members.



Yep, we've done this to death really, back to "couldn't write a sick note"...fine Ann tidied up his articles, maybe even changed a few words or took a bit out, she is definitely part of any conspiracy so fine, so what?



Back to "Sick note"....and this has been done to death too, who met him before his stroke?

Faked a stroke? Fine then he is deliberately trying to appear less competent than he was....and we all go around the Maybrickaround again.

I didn't say anything about a "nest of forgers", so that's obviously fake news. Mike named three people who were involved in the conspiracy, including himself, and that may well have been correct. In fact, I seriously doubt that there were lots of individuals involved, as it increases the odds that someone else would have broken ranks by now, and financially everyone's share of the spoils would be seriously diluted.

You keep referring to Mike's stroke. However, have you any evidence that, long term, it impacted on his cognitive abilities? In fact, accordingly to one study, the prevalence of post-stroke cognitive impairment, at 3 months and five years, was only around 22%: Douiri et al. 2012.

You see, we keep coming back to the fact that just about everyone who met Mike after the diary was published concluded that it was unlikely he could have been the author. You reason that this was because of the stroke, but I see little evidence for this. It may be on account of his alcoholism, but that may have been a factor before the diary wss published, further reducing the likelihood that he was the author.

Moreover, as I keep pointing out, in any conspiracy there would be more reasons than the issue of literacy skills to limit Mike's involvement, i.e. his erratic temperament, and his blabermouth tendency.

[Iconoclast]

[She wrote, dancing round the living room.]
Love,
Caz
X

Please please please get to the final and play a depleted, uninterested squad against Newcastle in the last game of the season.

Pretty please.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

am re-reading Ripper Diary and enjoying. The other day I came across the finding, in the spine of the Diary, a quantity of black powder which I think Eastaugh cautiously identified as 'bone black', a carbon compound made from incinerated animal bone. This material had many industrial and household applications in Victorian times including, as I recall, an antidote for certain common poisons, including arsenic. I mentioned this on the Forum some time ago, but it wasn't picked up by anyone. Sorry, but I can't recall where I read that bone black was used as an antidote for certain poisons, but I'm sure a search of the net will locate further information. As we know, Maybrick was an arsenic addict, but perhaps it's too far a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the bone black got into the Diary when he was snorting it to alleviate the effects of arsenic.

Any comments on this? Was the bone black discussed in any detail at the time of researching your book?

Graham

Not really, Graham, probably because we were concentrating on the story of what was happening during the first ten years of the diary and watch being in the public domain.

If bone black was used as an antidote for arsenic poisoning, it will no doubt be put down to another odd little coincidence, because surely if Mike Barrett had known this and put it in the diary to help things along, he'd have said so when making his January 1995 affidavit. That kind of evidence and inside knowledge Anne could not have destroyed or prevented Mike from blabbing about.

[She wrote, dancing round the living room.]

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi HS,

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.

Our mission, should you wish to accept it, is to rule this out.

Currently listening to my better half on Sid Valley Radio, doing his second voluntary 'Mod' spot, ten to twelve, or I wouldn't be posting on a Sunday.

http://sidvalleyradio.co.uk

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

Try telling that to the sceptics. For the diary to be a modern hoax, the watch has to be one too. I see no possible alternative. That's one of the reasons I just can't get my head round the diary being a modern Barrett hoax.

Even otherwise intelligent posters have insisted it would be a doddle for a hoaxer to completely polish out all existing surface scratches [including those seen by Mr Murphy the jeweller] then make those engravings, followed by some more surface scratches and more polishing, to make the whole thing look identical to how it looked in July 1992, so nobody would be suspicious, and then have two experts test them and find nothing inconsistent with them having been put there many decades before.

The engravings were found to be underneath all other scratch marks examined, and therefore pre-dating them.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I certainly think that it’s rather optimistic to suggest that it’s something that anyone with a few tools could accomplish. I don’t know, maybe Albert Johnson knew someone with the requisite skills? It would be interesting to hear more opinions from experts in this particular field though.

Maybe this is the reason why the diary attracts considerably more attention than the watch?

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

am re-reading Ripper Diary and enjoying. The other day I came across the finding, in the spine of the Diary, a quantity of black powder which I think Eastaugh cautiously identified as 'bone black', a carbon compound made from incinerated animal bone. This material had many industrial and household applications in Victorian times including, as I recall, an antidote for certain common poisons, including arsenic. I mentioned this on the Forum some time ago, but it wasn't picked up by anyone. Sorry, but I can't recall where I read that bone black was used as an antidote for certain poisons, but I'm sure a search of the net will locate further information. As we know, Maybrick was an arsenic addict, but perhaps it's too far a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the bone black got into the Diary when he was snorting it to alleviate the effects of arsenic.

Any comments on this? Was the bone black discussed in any detail at the time of researching your book?

Graham

[caz]

Hi HS,

Try telling that to the sceptics. For the diary to be a modern hoax, the watch has to be one too. I see no possible alternative. That's one of the reasons I just can't get my head round the diary being a modern Barrett hoax.

Even otherwise intelligent posters have insisted it would be a doddle for a hoaxer to completely polish out all existing surface scratches [including those seen by Mr Murphy the jeweller] then make those engravings, followed by some more surface scratches and more polishing, to make the whole thing look identical to how it looked in July 1992, so nobody would be suspicious, and then have two experts test them and find nothing inconsistent with them having been put there many decades before.

The engravings were found to be underneath all other scratch marks examined, and therefore pre-dating them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just thought that I’d mention the obvious. It’s incredibly difficult to score handwriting into such a small area and make it vaguely legible let alone match the handwriting of a signature. And then to do it so that expert examination can’t prove it’s not of the time suggested. Not saying it’s real or a fake. Just not something any Tom, Dick or Albert could do

[Graham]

I wouldn't say that, Graham, and I know others wouldn't either

Well, I would....so there.

I never implied that Albert (or Robbie) were up to anything suspicious with the Watch; what I was saying was that had they sold the Watch to Davis who then at some future point discovered for sure that it was fake, they could have been on the receiving end of an action for fraud, of which they were totally innocent. I think they did absolutely the right thing by not selling it to Davis (or anyone else).

Personally, I think the Watch is in the same dusty little compartment as the Diary - a fake. I've been racking my brains trying to think of any other serial killer who scratched the initials of his victims in a watch - or any other object, for that matter. I could just possibly accept a killer writing some kind of weird testimony, for old time's sake, to be found and gaped at after his death.

Graham

[caz]

Caz, you're obviously the expert here, and I bow humbly to your far greater knowledge of the events and the people in them...

I wouldn't say that, Graham, and I know others wouldn't either.

...but I do get the sense that there might have been more to Robbie that meets the eye.

Oh yes, I agree, and it's fortunate that it was Albert - not Robbie - who bought the watch and found the scratches, or we'd have had another 'Mike' situation. But even if Robbie was 'on the make' and thought he was looking after Albert's interests, and he'd get his reward in this life if not in heaven, it doesn't mean that either of them was knowingly involved in a recent hoax. What's more, they both returned more than once to the Murphys to pester them with questions about the watch [much like Mike had supposedly pestered someone living in Fountains Road about the diary, but without the supporting evidence for it ], which would have been a pointlessly risky exercise for the person who had hoaxed it. I mean, if Mike hoaxed the diary, using a guardbook he had bought at auction from Outhwaite & Litherland, would he have gone back with it to show them and ask questions about the content? That's what we are expected to believe the Johnsons did with the watch. It's nuts, isn't it?

I'm glad that the Watch did eventually end up in the possession of Daisy - some rare good in this whole sorry tale of the Diary and Watch.

Indeed, Graham.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Caz and rj,

I now have Ripper Diary in front of me, and on Pg 78 I read that the Johnsons (plural) had in mind a selling-price for the watch which the prospective buyer Robert Davis thought well above his estimation of the value of an object whose provenance was still open to question. Davis said he was looking at a price in the range $30 - 40000, which begs the question: just how much did 'the Johnsons' think it was worth? How much influence did Robbie have over his brother Albert in this matter, if any?

On Pg 79 of the Ripper Diary I read "Were the Johnsons [still plural] so confident that the watch would eventually be proved to be authentic and leapfrog in value or were they just taking a calculated risk that they would get a better price before it was exposed as a fake?" Even though posed as a question, this does seemingly suggest that at least one of the Johnson brothers was looking at the £££'s.

Caz, you're obviously the expert here, and I bow humbly to your far greater knowledge of the events and the people in them, but I do get the sense that there might have been more to Robbie that meets the eye.

I'm glad that the Watch did eventually end up in the possession of Daisy - some rare good in this whole sorry tale of the Diary and Watch.

Graham

[caz]

But if you encourage, plead, beg, and implore someone not to sell something, and they finally agree, it sure seems a little cheesy to come back later and use it as evidence of the man's honesty. At least to me, it does.

For my part, I never thought of the above in connection with my own personal experience of Albert. We all know about Mike's dishonesty over the diary, but there is nothing to suggest Albert was similarly dishonest over the watch. How was it remotely dishonest of him, if he did accept £3,000 from Robert Smith, in exchange for his agreement not to sell it to someone else for possibly ten times that amount? Why would anyone in that situation not have done the same thing? If they were dishonest, and couldn't care less about the diary book, but just wanted to make as much as possible out of a 'bandwagon' hoax, they would surely have told Smith to get knotted, no deal.

In point of fact, Robbie Johnson was shown to have told two undeniable lies about the watch. When first showing it to Feldman he tried to peddle a story that it had been in the Johnson family for years. Which rather makes him the Anne Graham of the watch. (See Richard Whittington-Egan's book). The second lie was caught-out by Feldman himself. Robbie was playing dumb about the nature of the scratches, apparently momentarily forgetting that he had already given Feldy a complete diagram of them! (See the Final Chapter). If Johnson is on the up and up, why is he lying?

You may as well ask, why would Robbie lie if he knew Albert was doing a good enough job of it by himself?

How predictable to bring Robbie into this, to lower the tone and try to put a spanner in the watch works. There is no evidence whatsoever that Robbie even knew Albert owned the watch until Albert himself told him about the discovery at the college. So if Albert was not the victim of a motiveless con by his own half-brother, you have to have Albert as the conman.

Either way, Robbie is another red herring, dragged from his grave to support a weak theory.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In the end, the Johnson's agreed to accept £3,000 for the rights of Smith to use it in the Harrison book.

My bad, rj. If I knew about this [or worse - if it's in Ripper Diary ] I must have forgotten.

That money wouldn't have been Robbie's though, surely? But at least it would have more than compensated Albert for the money he spent towards the testing.

Love,

Caz
X