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

[Graham]

Sam has it in a nutshell - our posts crossed.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Sam has it in a nutshell - our posts crossed.

Your post was far more nutshell-like than mine, Graham

[Hunter]

The victims in a nutshell:
It wasn't until Sugden's book in 1994 that Martha Tabram was seriously considered as a Ripper victim by a late 20th century author.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Turgoose: "The actual age would depend on the polishing regime employed, and any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation. Given these qualifications I would be of the opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer."

This paragraph pretty much sums up my point. Turgoose accepts the uncertainty as to the exact age due to the polishing regime. He uses the phrase ‘to some extent must remain speculation. But even after that unbiased qualification he still says that the engravings are likely to date back more than....

This is his opinion.

Now again I’ll stress that I’m not saying that the watch is genuine. I don’t know enough about the subject (and certainly not from a scientific point of view.) It seems clear however, that whichever way we view and analyse statements, the test that have been done so far in no way challenge the suggestion that the engravings aren’t from the correct period. Perhaps more tests might do just that. But until then, we are where we are.

[Sam Flynn]

he test that have been done so far in no way challenge the suggestion that the engravings aren’t from the correct period.

They don't in any way challenge the suggestion that the engravings are from the early 1990s either. This should be apparent if the reports are read carefully and with a critical, but objective, eye.

The fact that the markings on the watch were conveniently first noticed only after the "Maybrick" diary had been announced suggests strongly that the "Maybrick" watch was an opportunistic hoax made in response to the diary's publicity. The watch tests don't rule this out in the least.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair enough Gareth. But I'd also assume that a scientist would understand the ramifications of using the word 'likely' when giving the results of his analysis. If he didn't believe that his results justified the word he would have surely just said "the engravings might have been done in 1888/9 or equally they might not."

[Graham]

If he didn't believe that his results justified the word he would have surely just said "the engravings might have been done in 1888/9 or equally they might not."

Analytical chemists and other analytical scientists don't couch their findings in such language, HS. I know it's difficult to get one's head around science-speak, but what you quote would probably be regarded by those paying for tests as no answer at all.

As Sam correctly says, the SEM and SAM tests don't challenge the possibility that the engravings were relatively new when tested.

The fact that the Watch appeared so soon after the Diary raised quite a few highly-sceptical eyebrows at the time, believe me.

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

Analytical chemists and other analytical scientists don't couch their findings in such language, HS. I know it's difficult to get one's head around science-speak, but what you quote would probably be regarded by those paying for tests as no answer at all.

As Sam correctly says, the SEM and SAM tests don't challenge the possibility that the engravings were relatively new when tested.

The fact that the Watch appeared so soon after the Diary raised quite a few highly-sceptical eyebrows at the time, believe me.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I’m not doubting the fact that the engravings could have been intentionally aged or the fact that Turgoose said this. All I’m saying is what I thought would be obvious and uncontroversial, that Turgoose said “likely.” Which, however way you look or analyse, can only be taken in one way; that Turgoose felt that it was likeliest that the scratches were more than tens of years old. That’s all

I do remember the original controversy Graham as I’d already been interested in the case for about 5 or 6 years. I have to admit that Melvyn Harris got up my nose a lot . I also remember being ‘surprised’ at how many dismissed the diary before they’d even had chance to read it. I’m still, very, very slightly on the fence, whilst accepting that the evidence is very heavily weighted in favour of forgery. I’d describe myself as ‘not being absolutely convinced yet.’

The problem is for me, when I make the above statement about not being totally convinced, and when I’ve played ‘devil’s advocate’ for the sake of debate on other threads I’ve felt like a holocaust denier in a synagogue.

[Sam Flynn]

Turgoose: "The actual age would depend on the polishing regime employed, and any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation. Given these qualifications I would be of the opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer."

This paragraph pretty much sums up my point. Turgoose accepts the uncertainty as to the exact age due to the polishing regime. He uses the phrase ‘to some extent must remain speculation. But even after that unbiased qualification he still says that the engravings are likely to date back more than...

Not "even after" that qualification, but in the same breath as it.

[Graham]

Hi HS,

I very much hear what you say, and have to tell you that in the early days of the Diary I was also pretty well (but not totally - always leave room for error) that the identity of Jack The Ripper had been finally established. However, as I'd also read a little about the Maybrick Case, I began to wonder. And when the Watch came to light so soon after the Diary, I thougt, Ello, Ello, what's going on 'ere, then? If you've never read Feldman's book I recommend it, not because it sorts out the whole mystery for us - because it doesn't, far from it - but as an illustration of where a fervent belief in the Diary (and the Watch) can lead someone who has the resources to follow up his own convictions. For all that, it's an entertaining read (although some on here would I'm sure disagree).

I also quite liked Melvin Harris - he also had convictions, to put it mildly. I wouldn't have wanted to fall out with him, though.

At this stage of the game, I don't feel as the claimed origin of the Diary has been established beyond doubt, nor do I feel that its claimed Battlecrease provenance has been proved. I also feel (and have always felt) that there is something rather dodgy going on with the Watch.

Just the random jottings of a rank amateur, but all good fun.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Not "even after" that qualification, but in the same breath as it.

To illustrate the implications of this, let's just swap the two sentences in the relevant paragraph:

"I would be of the opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer, [but given the qualification that] the actual age would depend on the polishing regime employed, and any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation."

That's honestly not saying anything different to what Turgoose wrote, but it makes quite a difference, doesn't it? Besides, as I've hinted at (albeit not explicitly stated, out of politeness) Turgoose does seem to suffer something of a lapse in logic when he says that "the wear apparent on many of the engravings, evidenced by the rounded edges of the markings and the 'polishing out' in places would indicate a substantial age for the engravings". Apparent wear is emphatically no guarantee of age. As I've said, how much effort would it have taken to round/polish-out some engravings which were, after all, superficial in nature?

In this context, it's interesting to note that some of the micrographs show a veritable ice-rink of scratches, which is suggestive of someone having had a real go at deliberately distressing the watch in a short space of time. This could have happened years previously, of course, but until the wave of publicity surrounding the diary, why would anyone have been in a particular rush to "prepare" the watch for its debut in the public eye? (Bear in mind, also, that until the diary came out, there was no feasible reason to suppose that Maybrick was linked to the Whitechapel Murders in any capacity.)

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I believe that Dundas described the Watch as a lady's watch doubtless because of its small size, a mistake which I understand has been made by other persons involved and interested. But it seems that you're saying Dundas provided a physical description of a watch which could not have been the Johnson Watch. This so far as I can tell doesn't seem to be highlighted in Ripper Diary.

Tangled, innit?

Graham

Hi Graham,

Pages 240-242 of Feldman's 1998 paperback go into detail regarding Dundas's description of the watch he thought he was being asked about, and how this differed from Albert's watch in so many respects that it couldn't possibly have been the same one.

What's more, on page 218 of Ripper Diary, Dundas is so out in his timing of events that it would appear that he was thinking of a watch he had repaired only 'a month or so' before Murphy [Dundas thought his name was Stewart] telephoned him to ask if he had seen any marks on it relevant to JtR. This telephone call would have been made to Dundas more than a year after he had repaired Albert's watch, so it's a complete dog's breakfast.

People have argued that it doesn't matter because Dundas was certain there had been no such marks inside any watch he had worked on. But according to the Murphys, his certainty was misplaced. Here's what I posted on the Acquiring thread:

Hi David,

In answer to your question about direct quotes from the Murphys, see pages 243, 248 and 249 of Shirley Harrison's 1998 paperback:

'Later, before it was finally placed in their own shop window, Ron himself cleaned the watch and it was then that he noticed the scratches in the back. "I tried to buff them out with jeweller's rouge", he recalls ruefully.'

Then on page 249:

'The Murphys were indignant. "He [Dundas] was asked only to repair the movement, not clean the watch - he would not have been needed to look inside the back at all. He would not have noticed the scratches, anyway. After all, we tried to clean them and simply because they were so faint we didn't realise what they were! There is absolutely no doubt that the watch Mr Johnson bought from us is the watch you have seen with the scratches in the back".

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Thanks Caz. I'll check the books! Am part way through a re-read of Ripper Diary, but keep getting side-tracked. I haven't read Feldman's tome for years, so that's next on the list.

There is absolutely no doubt that the watch Mr Johnson bought from us is the watch you have seen with the scratches in the back".

Indeed, but the Murphys just said 'scratches' and not 'scratches that could have been writing'. If they'd said the latter, then that would have been impressive. Or did the Johnsons during their visits tell the Murphys that there was lettering on the watch?

Graham

[caz]

I think the problem with that is you’re debating with posters who aren’t prepared to accept normal arguments, who use supposition as fact and who have personal interests in prolonging the discussion.
The bottom line is that some people are not prepared to accept that it’s possible to draw conclusions about the diary, the watch etc. indeed, it’s hard to imagine the kind of proof that would not be discounted - a video recording of Barrett writing the diary would be dismissed instantly!

It’s classic conspiracy theorist-techniques: question every little discrepancy in the sources, assume the most far fetched scenarios on the basis that they can’t be ruled out, discount sources not to your liking and cast doubt over every little detail. That way, there’s always more to discuss, and if one is hoping to sell books or be invited as guest speaker to a conference, then more discussion is good, right?

So Steve Elamarna is right: there’s little point in continuing. You and David Orsam are doing stellar work trying to keep arguments empirically based, but I just think you’re up against people whose only objective, for whatever reason, is to continue the discussion far beyond reason.

Hi Kattrup,

You sound like a very wise person, so may I ask you just a couple of questions?

Firstly, how would you explain the order in which all the scratches and markings were made inside the watch, if the hoax was created in 1993, on the back of the yet to be published diary, more than a year after Murphy had tried and failed to buff out several scratch marks on the same inner surface? The Maybrick and JtR markings were made first, before all the other scratches. So what happened to the scratches Murphy saw?

Secondly, how would you explain Mike Barrett's angry reaction when Paul Feldman tells him, around May/June 1993 [again, before the diary or its description has been published], that an electrician is prepared to confess that he found the diary while working in Battlecrease House? If Mike forged or helped forge it, why doesn't he simply laugh and say to Feldman: "If this electrician says he seen the diary, ask him what it looks like and what's inside. I bet you a million pounds he won't be able to tell you a sodding thing about it, because it never came out of that house and he's never seen it". Instead, Mike goes straight round to where the electrician is living at the time, to threaten him with solicitors if he says he found it and passed it on to Mike. What has Mike got to fear, if Eddie Lyons really does know sod all about the physical diary?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thanks Caz. I'll check the books! Am part way through a re-read of Ripper Diary, but keep getting side-tracked. I haven't read Feldman's tome for years, so that's next on the list.

Graham

One other thing that possibly gets missed is that Dundas, unlike the Murphys, never saw Albert's watch again after he repaired it, which was in early 1992.

So if Murphy calls him over a year later, in the summer of 1993, to ask if he saw the JtR marks, but Dundas remembers this call coming just a month or so after his repair, it's little wonder he was so sure the marks weren't there. Albert's watch wasn't there either!

Love,

Caz
X