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

[Graham]

sounds like the watch forgers didn't read the diary forgers close enough.

Highly likely! But I'd guess that neither the Diary nor the Watch hoaxers had read any up-to-date book (at that time) on Jack The Ripper.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

sounds like the watch forgers didn't read the diary forgers close enough.

The diary had not yet been published.

[Abby Normal]

That's exactly the point I'm making, Sam. I've done very little Ripper reading over the past few years, so I'm a bit rusty, but am I correct in saying that earlier Ripper authors such as Dan Farson considered Martha Tabram, for example, a Ripper victim? Perhaps the first Ripper victim?

And if dear old Jim was boasting in the Diary about bumping off a couple of unfortunate ladies in Manchester, where were their initials on the Watch?

The thot plickens.

Graham

sounds like the watch forgers didn't read the diary forgers close enough.

[Graham]

I'll have to check Farson when I get home, Graham, but I would suggest that neither his book, nor those of others like Cullen and Odell, achieved the outreach of Rumbelow, Fido and - especially - Knight, to say nothing of Michael Caine, in which works the "canonical five" victims were firmly established, and none of which pre-dated the mid-1970s.

Thanks Sam. Farson's was the first Ripper book I ever read. I've still probably got a copy, as well as at least some of the others, but if so they'll be up in the loft in a big box by order of wife. Also read Knight's book, well-written admittedly, but did he ever fall for it!

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

am I correct in saying that earlier Ripper authors such as Dan Farson considered Martha Tabram, for example, a Ripper victim? Perhaps the first Ripper victim?

I'll have to check Farson when I get home, Graham, but I would suggest that neither his book, nor those of others like Cullen and Odell, achieved the outreach of Rumbelow, Fido and - especially - Knight, to say nothing of Michael Caine, in which works the "canonical five" victims were firmly established, and none of which pre-dated the mid-1970s.

[Graham]

Independent opportunist hoaxers who plumped for different numbers? That the watch only gives those five is probably due to their "canonicity" as evidenced by recent popular books (e.g. Rumbelow, Fido) and media articles.

That's exactly the point I'm making, Sam. I've done very little Ripper reading over the past few years, so I'm a bit rusty, but am I correct in saying that earlier Ripper authors such as Dan Farson considered Martha Tabram, for example, a Ripper victim? Perhaps the first Ripper victim?

And if dear old Jim was boasting in the Diary about bumping off a couple of unfortunate ladies in Manchester, where were their initials on the Watch?

The thot plickens.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

And still nowt about the 'seven victims' versus the 'five initials'.

Independent opportunist hoaxers who plumped for different numbers? That the watch only gives those five is probably due to their "canonicity" as evidenced by recent popular books (e.g. Rumbelow, Fido) and media articles.

[Graham]

Paul Feldman mentioned two watches in his book. I mentioned this some time ago and was told to stop "listening to Feldy". It seems the person who advised me to "stop listening to Feldy" is now suggesting there is a possibilty that there were two watches.

Regardless of how many watches there were Mr Dundas repaired Murphy's watches, and when asked couldn't recall the marks scratched into the "Maybrick watch". There's no doubting the fact that he would have examined the marks of all the watches he repaired, they are put there as an aid to inform whoever is servicing the watch. I contend that if the name Maybrick had been in evidence then he would have remembered it. He didn't remember it.

I brought this point up some time ago, and was told would you believe that perhaps Dundas didn't have a microscope!

As I've said, jewellers have ample optical tools to examine the tiniest details whilst repairing watches. They don't need microscopes.

I think I'm with you on this, Observer. It's ages since I read Feldman's book - am currently re-reading Ripper Diary. I'm wondering if in fact we're all just wasting our time....

I'm going to sit down and have a nice cup of tea.

Graham

[Observer]

In Post 356 Caz says that Mr Dundas descMurphy other watch whihe 'Maybrick Watch'. I don't recall reading anything about this elsewhere, so wonder if Caz would kindly explain further?

And still nowt about the 'seven victims' versus the 'five initials'.

Graham

Paul Feldman mentioned two watches in his book. I mentioned this some time ago and was told to stop "listening to Feldy". It seems the person who advised me to "stop listening to Feldy" is now suggesting there is a possibilty that there were two watches.

Regardless of how many watches there were Mr Dundas repaired Murphy's watches, and when asked couldn't recall the marks scratched into the "Maybrick watch". There's no doubting the fact that he would have examined the marks of all the watches he repaired, they are put there as an aid to inform whoever is servicing the watch. I contend that if the name Maybrick had been in evidence then he would have remembered it. He didn't remember it.

I brought this point up some time ago, and was told would you believe that perhaps Dundas didn't have a microscope!

As I've said, jewellers have ample optical tools to examine the tiniest details whilst repairing watches. They don't need microscopes.

[Graham]

In Post 356 Caz says that Mr Dundas described another watch which wasn't the 'Maybrick Watch'. I don't recall reading anything about this elsewhere, so wonder if Caz would kindly explain further?

And still nowt about the 'seven victims' versus the 'five initials'.

Graham

[Observer]

I sense frustration that the watch can’t be dismissed easily.

Your senses are letting you down I'm afraid.

[Observer]

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.

Great post Katrup. Post #353 illustrates the points you make to a tee. Your point about the selling of books might well apply here. I brought this up some months ago. Is there another rip off book on the horizon?

[Observer]

Again, I can't help feeling the point is still being missed.

Weren't the experts saying that a modern hoax would have needed all this 'bizarre' polishing in order to mimic all the natural signs of wear and ageing they'd expect to see with scratches made in soft metal many decades ago?

Love,

Caz
X

You're missing the point, purposely or not. There would be no wearing, or ageing to the inside back cover over the years, none. How could there be? The forger of the watch didn't have his thinking cap on when he set out to forge the marks on the watch, he would have best been served to have left the marks as they were immediately after he scratched them into the watch.

[John Wheat]

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.

Your absolutely right Kattrup.

[John G]

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.

I would just point put that Mike, in his original affidavit, didn't claim to have written the Diary: he said his wife wrote it (somewhat oddly, he states this was because his own writing was too distinctive ), whilst he dictated.