One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Mike J. G.]

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.

Oh, I have plenty more where that came from, lol. You've not even seen my Bigfoot poetry, Henry!

[caz]

I agree, Mike, but I see that Caz is playing her cheeky game again: if this was supposed to be Maybrick's watch why would the hoaxer have procured a watch bearing the ornate J.O initials? So once again, easily avoided errors or anomalies get recast as evidence against fakery.

Caz, maybe it WAS Maybrick's watch, and maybe J.O stood for "Jack's Orrible!" - or - "Juwes Out!"

Hmmm, so you see the "J O" as an 'error' or 'anomaly', Henry?

And you see me 'recasting' them as evidence against fakery?

Interesting.

I just think other people have assumed the intention was to produce a watch supposedly owned and 'sported' by Maybrick, despite the very obvious "J O" telling a different story. Seems to me this didn't bother our hoaxer in the slightest, perhaps because they could imagine their Jack being mad and bad enough to steal a watch [gasp!] and scratch his own name in it out of spite.

When our hoaxer had this brainwave [not] is another matter. I just don't think it was nearly as recently as proposed by those 'other people'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

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

Tbf, Caz, I have left room for the possibility that the watch was not purchased at all, but that it may have well been in the possession of this person or persons in question already.

It's not a relatively expensive watch, and many like it would've been commonplace. My family has all kinds of old watches and clocks laying about here and there.

All you need is for it to vaguely chime (no pun intended) with the relative dates for Maybrick, so obviously if it was any date after 1889 then it'd be cast aside as a joke, but any date before then could conceivably be seen to be possible with regards to being owned by Jim.

The watch's carvings cannot be properly dated due to polishing, and I don't think that that is a coincidence.

[Mike J. G.]

Hmmm, so you see the "J O" as an 'error' or 'anomaly', Henry?

And you see me 'recasting' them as evidence against fakery?

Interesting.

I just think other people have assumed the intention was to produce a watch supposedly owned and 'sported' by Maybrick, despite the very obvious "J O" telling a different story. Seems to me this didn't bother our hoaxer in the slightest, perhaps because they could imagine their Jack being mad and bad enough to steal a watch [gasp!] and scratch his own name in it out of spite.

When our hoaxer had this brainwave [not] is another matter. I just don't think it was nearly as recently as proposed by those 'other people'.

Love,

Caz
X

The thing being missed here, though, Caz, is that the J O is having the very effect on you that we were discussing just yesterday; that it adds to the mystery, it can go both ways depending on how you want to see it.

For me, it's a non-issue, seeing as it could've been on the watch already for years, so why take it off? Why not leave it there to enhance its age and its mystery?

It's the same with the diary: "why would they use a photo-album?" Maybe it was a chance-find, maybe they thought it'd add credibility, who knows? Hoaxers don't think in the manner that we'd expect them to.

The J O has already added to the mystery, thus proving its worth in terms of inclusion: "why would a hoaxer obtain a watch with odd initials on it?" Well, they'd do it to further the speculation, because that's the kind of thing you see in hoaxes throughout history.

How would a cowboy obsessed with Bigfoot go off and try to find Bigfoot and then actually accomplish it? Yet that happened and everyone gave it credence.

Hoaxers are all about the detail, but that doesn't mean they'll always pull it off or get the details correct, and the diary's hoaxer obviously got some stuff wrong, but there's enough people out there to give it credence regardless, and that's how hoaxes work.

[Mike J. G.]

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'?



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

Far too much credence is given to what random blokes in lab-coats say, Caz.

How many actual relevant scientists have come out and claimed that the watch was beyond the capability of literally anyone with a desire to fool people?

So many hoaxes have this same incorrect rhetoric, that they'd require skill, expertise and talent beyond the average Joe.

Nobody could make those intricate crop-circles, not unless they were precise and patient and had about 3 hours to work... which is exactly what crop-circles makers have and do.

Nobody could make a suit like that in 1967, not unless they glued the hairs on individually and that'd take about a day... which is exactly what happened.

What actual expertise were needed to stick some carvings on an old watch? Let's be honest here, what kind of skills and scientific knowledge was needed?

The problem is that we tend to have one talking-head scientist pop up, and we throw ourselves at their feet. I'd be interested to know just how many people who know what they're talking about also feel that the watch is some amazing feat of skill and precision.

History isn't on the side of the watch being some great piece of work. Time and again people are fooled by the most simple of folk.

[Mike J. G.]

Caz:



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?"

The problem remains that due to the excessive polishing, no actual correct dating can be determined, which effectively renders the "had to be old and had to be done skillfully" argument null and void.

There's no real data to suggest that this was beyond anyone's capability, and the very fact that it exists is proof that it wasn't beyond anyone's capability, lol.

It's so easy to play the fool and yet have people eating out of your hand, and we have so many examples of this that it's not even up for debate anymore.

There are "scientists" out there who are routinely fooled by even the most obvious bits of nonsense, and people latch onto their dumbfounded confusion as though this lends the hoax credence.

Piltdown Man was an amazing example of how utterly tragic it is to place your faith in the hands of blokes in labcoats.

[Mike J. G.]

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.

Not only that, but they must also be very wary of any markings that they may be blamed for producing during restoration or cleaning.

[Mike J. G.]

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 really don't get the point in pushing the idea that the writer of the diary was familiar with a totally obscure nickname for this pub, though, Caz. You keep pushing the idea that the Old Post Office was known by the weirdly spelled nickname of "Poste House," despite there being no evidence of this whatsoever beyond the opinion of a random bloke that you talked to, yet when I ask people who are frequenters to these pubs in town, I don't get the same response, I get "Hmmm, never heard of that one."

So we're left with what seems more probable:

Either, the forger was privy to some obscure knowledge regarding a nickname for an entirely different pub that has since been lost to the sands of time.

or

The forger was incorrect in thinking that the "Poste House" was known as the Poste House when it was called the Muck Midden.

So, to you, you think it more likely that he was actually talking about the Old Post Office, yet just added the "e" on mistakenly which was coincidentally exactly how the name appeared in the title of the pub that would come about years later? And you seriously don't think that that's a bit silly?

When I mentioned the Gore's directory not including the name "Poste House," you told me I was incorrect and then informed me about the Old Post Office, but the fact remains that this was called "the Old Post Office Tavern" and no such nickname for it ever existed in any print I've been able to find, nor have the chaps at the central library, the Picton reading rooms, or anyone I've ever met ever heard of this obscure nickname. So, am I to believe the assumption of a man whom you have spoken to, or go with the probability of likelihood?

Seeing as the diary contains clues as to the fact that it wasn't written in the 19th century, I'd hazard a guess that the writer had no idea about the Old Post Office Tavern and it's possible yet completely obscure nickname that coincidentally matches a known pub in the district. The very spelling alone is a dead-giveaway, but if you choose to believe that it was a mere mistake brought on by "poste haste," well then that's entirely up to you.

Occams razor dictates that this is a modern hoax and we have several clues that prove it, but I can't tell people what to think, it's up to them. If you can find me literally any evidence to suggest that the Tavern was ever known by such a nickname, then I'll be happy to reconsider, but there is no such evidence available, and I have to wonder where your source got his information from, as I can't find it, and it's not for a lack of trying, Caz.

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.

I can only speculate on this, Caz, but again, which seems more likely to you? Idk how you can view this as not even a remote possibility, yet totally see the possibility in an even less likely scenario that has the hoaxer being privy to an absolutely obscure and virtually unknown nickname, as opposed to merely incorrectly mentioning the Poste House. Do you not see the contradictory credence being given in these two instances?

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.

True, but I don't get the significance of this, Caz. It seems far more likely that the "e" was a product of Poste House, and the intention to make the spelling seem more archaic.

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

Something you overlook is that I've not been asking or searching for the name "HQ," but if I did, I'd likely find at least someone who could verify it, whereas I've searched high and low for the "Poste House" and have found literally nothing whatsoever, and the only people who seem to have heard of this totally unknown nickname are two men whom you have supposedly met and yet won't provide any details on other than their initials.

As it stands, the more likely solution is this:

due to the modern expressions, the details lifted from the police report, the inclusion of details that are available in books that we know Mike Barrett had in his possession, the use of the Poste House pub - that it's a modern hoax.

The weight of the evidence for it being a modern hoax by far outweighs any evidence for it being an older hoax, and there's simply no real rebuttal to that glaring realization, imo.

Why on earth anyone feels that coincidence is rife as opposed to the far more likely answer of it being a modern fake is beyond me, but some people won't budge on their beliefs, regardless of the weight of issues against their theories. Just ask Ike!

[caz]

I don't know whether the J O was added for this effect, or whether they were already on the watch...

I don't recall anyone suggesting that the professionally inscribed "J O" was a modern addition, or that it was commissioned by the hoaxer, or indeed that the hoaxer was a professional engraver. Those initials were on the watch when Albert bought it in July 1992.

Scraping/tracing the original initials would also be beneficial when scratching the other initials in, as it would possibly transfer aged particles into the fresh carvings.

Not sure what you are getting at here, Mike. The "J O" engraving is on the outside of the watch while all the scratching was done on an inner surface. There is no evidence as far as I am aware that the "J O" has been scraped, traced or otherwise tampered with by any tools used to make the crude scratchings.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

That's not half bad, Mike.

Now if only the other Mike could have produced something even approaching this quality when he was desperate to claim authorship of the diary, you wouldn't have had the chance to entertain us.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

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

Caz, I have to wonder whether this desire for the hoax to be older is jading your outlook, seeing as how you can comfortably rule out implausibilities such as this, yet totally find it plausible that the writer of the diary invented obscure expressions and was privy to the now completely unknown knowledge that the Old Post Office Tavern was known as "the Poste House," a striking coincidence in this book of coincidences, seeing as how a pub with that exact spelling and title would pop up some years later...

So, I have to say, forgive me for not paying much attention to what you personally find implausible!

[Mike J. G.]

That's not half bad, Mike.

Now if only the other Mike could have produced something even approaching this quality when he was desperate to claim authorship of the diary, you wouldn't have had the chance to entertain us.

Love,

Caz
X

Cheers, Caz, I'm quite proud of this, seeing as it's my first attempt at a Maybrick-related poem, although I wrote it in about 5 minutes!

(Shameless plug! https://allpoetry.com/Gilly86)

[caz]

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?

I have no idea what you are on, Observer, but I'll have a pint please.

I also have no idea what you are on about, and I suspect neither have you.

I very much doubt that Dundas, should he have saw those inscriptions inside the watch in question would have failed to observe them.

But if he was recalling a different watch entirely, which had nothing out of the ordinary inside for him to observe, I fail to see the usefulness of his claims. The scratch marks we are talking about - on Albert's watch - are so crudely made, so faint, so worn and so hard to decipher that unless you already know they are there on that surface, you wouldn't necessarily take any notice of them if you did see them, if you are constantly having different watches to work with.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

So where does Dundas mention seeing any such repair marks in the watch he thought was sold to Albert?

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

I have no idea what you are on, Observer, but I'll have a pint please.

I also have no idea what you are on about, and I suspect neither have you.

I have no idea what I'm on about? There you go again. Read Paul Feldman's book starting page 217.

But if he was recalling a different watch entirely, which had nothing out of the ordinary inside for him to observe, I fail to see the usefulness of his claims. The scratch marks we are talking about - on Albert's watch - are so crudely made, so faint, so worn and so hard to decipher that unless you already know they are there on that surface you wouldn't necessarily take any notice of them if you did see them.

That's BS Caz. Did you really read my post on the subject? Albert saw the marks, as would Dundas, he would be looking for them. As I said, it's part of his job, he'll have looked through a glass at every watch he repaired. You can huff, and you can puff, as is you're want, but there's no way Dundas would have missed those marks, whichever watch he looked at