One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Mike J. G.]

I'm going straight to Ebay now, Mike. It'll be done by the weekend. I'll even leave some Ray Wallace bigfoot prints around the grounds for you to enjoy

And I'll be there with my Kodachrome and plaster of paris!

[Henry Flower]

And I'll be there with my Kodachrome and plaster of paris!

We're OT. We'll be banned.

[Mike J. G.]

We're OT. We'll be banned.

True, Henry, and thus I have decided to pen a poem for the topic so as to save our arses!:

The good Sir Jim,
he wasn't dim,
he invented expressions,
such as "one-off," he did.

He had two types of hand,
with which he would fool all the land.
A walking enigma, that you'd never understand.

Tin match-box empty, he may well have listed.
He even drank in the Poste House before it ever existed!

He was the Torso Man, and Saucy Jack,
he knew his way around London in the bitter pitch black.

The good Sir Jim,
Jack of all trades,
arsenic, strychnine and a butcher's blade.

A diary he wrote,
to explain all his deeds,
satisfying the questions and quelling the needs.

So a salute to Sir Jim,
please raise a toast,
to the fabled James Maybrick,
and his blotchy-faced ghost.

[Henry Flower]

Mike, a fine piece of work! One of your best yet, if I may say so. Your study of early lyric poetry has clearly reaped dividends, and your use of parataxis is an unexpected pleasure.

Roll on, Casebook Creative Writing Awards Night.

[caz]

I personally feel that this was a nice addition to the hoax, and almost likely to be a watch either bought at auction or in an antique shop.

But bought at auction or in an antique shop when, Mike?

Albert bought it on 14th July 1992 [there is a receipt] from a jeweller's shop across the Mersey.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

But bought at auction or in an antique shop when, Mike?

Albert bought it on 14th July 1992 [there is a receipt] from a jeweller's shop across the Mersey.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Which watch would this be? As you know there are two watches involved in this little drama. It's obvious by their replies that other posters are not aware of this fact.

I'll reply to any outstanding posts directed by you to me at a later date.

[caz]

While I do get your point, Caz, it's the fact that even the nickname doesn't show up anywhere, but other pubs and taverns can and have been documented along with their various nicknames.

So you have found documented examples of 'the pub', 'the inn', 'the tavern' or 'my local' as nicknames, Mike? What watering hole nicknames have you found that would be the equivalent of 'the post house'? It's not even strictly a nickname, is it? Maybrick's grandfather would have known the Post Office Tavern in its post house days. He was parish clerk when James was born and the young Maybricks grew up in Church Alley, which as you know is not much more than a stone's throw away, with Liverpool's Whitechapel not much further than that in the other direction. If granddad knew it as the post house when he was using it as a post house, is it so far out there to think he would have carried on referring to it as the post house when the original post office was established next door and even after this moved to another part of the city?

I do see how a place could be regarded as the "Post(e) House," but for me, that's a very limited possibility when we view the diary as a probable hoax.

But the most limited possibility of all has surely got to be the Barretts creating this probable hoax with their daughter watching, just a few days before Mike was due to take it to London. For me it's not even a remote possibility, and even Melvin Harris knew better than to swallow it.

When I think about it, the usage of the archaic "poste" even in the line "poste haste," seems like an attempt at speaking in an old-fashioned manner, maybe inspired by the archaic spelling of poste in "poste house," or even a mistake brought on by the usage of an "e" for Poste House, if you get what I mean.

Alternatively, as the Maybricks would never have seen a sign reading The Poste House [or even The Post House] over the door of any tavern in the town, our hoaxer could have been thinking of 'Poste Restante', which would have been a familiar enough sign at the right time.

I've not heard of the "HQ" nickname, but tbf, I'm not a frequent visitor to the Post Office Tavern, and I don't think I've been in there for a good number of years now.

Okay, so you haven't seen the "HQ" among your 'pubs and their nicknames' publications either? And presumably different people can have different nicknames for their usual haunts and these can also change over the years?

I'm happy with that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Mike, a fine piece of work! One of your best yet, if I may say so. Your study of early lyric poetry has clearly reaped dividends, and your use of parataxis is an unexpected pleasure.

Roll on, Casebook Creative Writing Awards Night.

I have been re-visiting Paul Feldman's book "JackThe Ripper The Final Solution" Henry, and I must say Mike's excellent attempt at verse is not bad at all, but not a patch on Albert Johnstone's epic verse viewed therein.

[caz]

Hi Caz

Which watch would this be? As you know there are two watches involved in this little drama. It's obvious by their replies that other posters are not aware of this fact.

I'll reply to any outstanding posts directed by you to me at a later date.

The watch Albert bought and the watch with the scratches are one and the same, Observer. There never was another one.

Dundas was almost certainly remembering a different watch and Feldman dreamed up a whole other conspiracy theory based on two totally incompatible descriptions of what was supposedly 'the' watch. It was bonkers and just one more of Feldy's typically misleading diversions.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If the watch itself was a product of the same people who were responsible for the diary, then the list of initials may not have been all that surprising, since they had enough basic knowledge of the case to begin the hoax in the first place.

Well there has never been the slightest shred of evidence that the Johnsons and the Barretts knew of each other's existence when the scratches came to light, so you'd be looking for a phantom raspberry blower who knew both families and was responsible for engineering the situations which led to the emergence of their diary via Mike and their watch via Albert. Highly plausible - not.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

The watch Albert bought and the watch with the scratches are one and the same, Observer. There never was another one.

Dundas was almost certainly remembering a different watch and Feldman dreamed up a whole other conspiracy theory based on two totally incompatible descriptions of what was supposedly 'the' watch. It was bonkers and just one more of Feldy's typically misleading diversions.

Love,

Caz
X

So Albert Johnston never owned a gold faced Verity watch into which was inscribed the initials of the murder victims etc? in effect he only owned a white faced porcelain Verity watch into which the murder victims initials, the words "I an Jack", and "James Maybrick" were inscribed?

Also, as far as I can see Dundas was adamant that when he fixed the white faced Verity watch there were no inscriptions in place at that time. I had a word with a jeweller friend of mine, who also fixes watches, and he informs me that the first thing he does is to search for inscriptions inside the watches he repairs. He tells me that the reason for this is that sometimes famous names come to light, which obviously increases the value of the watches should they be verified. I very much doubt that Dundas, should he have saw those inscriptions inside the watch in question would have failed to observe them. Seeing that he never ever saw "I am Jack" together with "James Maybrick" inscribed inside any watch that he repaired, including the one purchased by Albert Johnston, then I doubt that any such inscriptions existed.

[Observer]

Might I add, that according to my friend the jeweller, every jeweller worth his salt, looks for inscriptions inside watches. They have dates put there by previous repairers which gives the repairer some scale as to when the watch was last repaired. It's inconceivable that Dundas would not have looked inside the white faced Verity watch, as purchased by Albert Johnston, and missed the inscriptions in question.

[caz]

Turgoose, in his report of 10 August 1993, thought that the wear on many of the engravings indicated a substantial age (more than tens of years) although the actual age 'must remain speculation'. At the same time, he stated that, 'there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings.' So those who like incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable facts will no doubt feel a bit deflated by that.

What did anyone expect? It's a rare scientist, and probably not a very good one, who will stick his neck out and put the equivalent of a date stamp on such things. The actual age will inevitably be down to speculation based on the non-scientific knowns and unknowns. But if the wear indicated to this scientist 'more than tens of years', is it really more likely that it represented an actual age of just a couple of months? Who among our elusive nest of modern forgers would have had the skill and scientific awareness required to attempt this 'complex process' using 'a variety of different tools'? Has anyone a suspect in mind? Or must that too remain 'speculation'?

There is also a report by Wild dated 31 January 1994 but he said that the amount of time available for his examination was 'limited to only a few hours' so that 'a thorough investigation was not possible and any conclusions are therefore preliminary at this stage', hence it might be more misleading than helpful to quote from his report.

I've never read anyone with scientific expertise counter the points made by Melvin Harris about the dating of the particles.

How much relevant scientific expertise did Melvin possess? Anyone know? I seem to recall he made oboes and spent an enormous amount of time, effort and hot air 'debunking' the diary and watch. But why rely on the highly subjective clever-dick opinions of a hopelessly jaundiced middle man when the actual scientific reports are here on this very website, in the dissertations section, for all to read and digest? As far as I am aware, Melvin never saw the watch, or even the full watch reports, and never met any of his suspected hoaxers. I wouldn't mind betting his mind was made up about the diary and watch being recent fakes the instant he heard about them. It's a mystery where he got some of his professed expertise from, but his bold assertion that it's a lady's watch was 'amateurish' in the extreme, and should at the very least put a question mark over what else was bluff and bluster on his part.

Here's the link to the scientific analyses of the watch as carried out by the professionals:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/watchreport.html

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Caz:

Who among our elusive nest of modern forgers would have had the skill and scientific awareness required to attempt this 'complex process' using 'a variety of different tools'? Has anyone a suspect in mind? Or must that too remain 'speculation'?

Oh heck, if it was anything more than a simple one-step process that could've been carried out by anyone who owned a Dremel and a magnifying glass, then I guess there is nobody alive who could possibly have done it! If it was "complex" we may as well assume it was impossible. And I'm further drawn inescapably to that conclusion by the fact that I don't have a name for the actual perpetrator of the fraud. I mean, if it 'must remain speculation' then the possibility must be entirely discounted, surely...

It's a shame the dating wasn't given as 'very recent', so that I could see whether Caz would play her ever-reliable gambit: "But if the watch were a recent hoax, wouldn't the hoaxer have made sure to artifically age the scratches?"

[Mike J. G.]

But bought at auction or in an antique shop when, Mike?

Albert bought it on 14th July 1992 [there is a receipt] from a jeweller's shop across the Mersey.

Love,

Caz
X

Well it'd be nice to know that, Caz, but unfortunately I do not, but I don't see how that makes any difference, really.

Let's be honest here, on the scale of probabilities, it's safe to say that it was not James Maybrick's watch, and it's even safer to say that it wasn't the Ripper's watch, either.

Seeing as the diary was foisted on the public in the same period, it seems highly likely that the watch was an intended addition to the hoax.

Nothing about the watch adds up, much like the diary itself.

When you say "across the Mersey," do you mean in Birkenhead or somewhere similar?