One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Observer]

Your attempt at an explanation is quite silly I agree. Who said the person who wrote the scrapbook had no knowledge of the watch? Whether that be Maybrick or not?

I believe they both came from the same place and that is from under the floorboards of Battlecrease House on Monday 9th March 1992. Who put them there I do not know. A bag was also found with an old key inside. The watch and the bag found it's way into the lcoal antiques trade and the scrabook found it's way in to Mike Barrett's hands. The artefacts were seperated by the finder who probably didn't think there was much value in an old watch (that had most likely stopped) or an old bag, but the old book could be worth something - esecially if it was signed by Jack The Ripper. Did James Maybrick put them there or did someone else? I have no idea. If it was a hoax why place them there in the first place?

Maybe some of those questions will get answered over time, but maybe not. Even if the watch is real and the scrabook is a hoax, I accept it does not provide a smoking gun from a historian's perspective. It certainly makes it an interesting one from mine.

In my opinion you're deluded. Lets try and make some sense of this. So the electricians also found the watch, and a bag with a key inside? Where did you get the information that a bag was found with a key inside it? Getting back to the watch and Diary, you're 100 per cent certain the watch was inscribed by James Maybrick. You also concede that the Diary might not have been written by James Maybrick. So the person who wrote the Diary had knowledge that Maybrick had inscribed his name, and "I am Jack" inside the back cover of his watch. Failing that, are you saying that the person who wrote the Diary was privy to information that Maybrick was either JTR, or he, Maybrick, decided to have a bit of a laugh and inscribe his name , and "I am Jack" into the back of his watch. The person in question then decides to write a fictitious Diary in which Maybrick depicts himself as JTR? I'm finding it hard to construct a scenario using your interpretation of events. Care to oblige us with your version of events?

Isn't it infinitely more likely that Robbie Johnston with possibly the reluctant help of his brother, upon hearing of the Maybrick Diary decided to carry out a little bit of a hoax themselves?

[caz]

"bumbling buffoon" was a good spot from The Baron. As I've noted myself on the other threads, it's seems like it should be common, but as it stands, no one has found a printing of it. That's interesting, regardless of what side of the debate your on. Sadly it seems, as was evidenced with the announcement of the "special announcement", debates regarding possible evidence of modern (ie, Barrett family) hoaxing aren't looked at on individual merit, but on their proximity to David Barrat. As The Baron is unashamedly his biggest fan, but not by a long shot his sock puppet, his bumbling buffoon discovery is instantly dismissed, because it's Pro Orsam or some such crap. But it's a good point he raises. I myself have said that both words were in use, and should have made sense in the LVP, it seems plausible. So why can't we find a single example?

I've not been exactly polite to The Baron myself, but that doesn't mean I'll rubbish his findings for that reason.

To my mind, Al, it's simply not a common phrase, so examples are likely to be comparatively rare in whichever decade we are looking for them. In theory it could have been picked up by the Barretts in the late 1980s, and considered suitably old fashioned, but it's not evidence by itself that it got into the diary by that route.

I don't care who eventually finds the smoking gun that dates the diary to the early 1990s - assuming it's there to be found - but 'bumbling buffoon' is not even warm.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

In my opinion you're deluded. Lets try and make some sense of this. So the electricians also found the watch, and a bag with a key inside? Where did you get the information that a bag was found with a key inside it? Getting back to the watch and Diary, you're 100 per cent certain the watch was inscribed by James Maybrick. You also concede that the Diary might not have been written by James Maybrick. So the person who wrote the Diary had knowledge that Maybrick had inscribed his name, and "I am Jack" inside the back cover of his watch. Failing that, are you saying that the person who wrote the Diary was privy to information that Maybrick was either JTR, or he, Maybrick, decided to have a bit of a laugh and inscribe his name , and "I am Jack" into the back of his watch. The person in question then decides to write a fictitious Diary in which Maybrick depicts himself as JTR? I'm finding it hard to construct a scenario using your interpretation of events. Care to oblige us with your version of events?

Isn't it infinitely more likely that Robbie Johnston with possibly the reluctant help of his brother, upon hearing of the Maybrick Diary decided to carry out a little bit of a hoax themselves?

"I am Jack" LOL! I am jack.. No really I am! I swear!
HAHAHAHA

the watch is even goofier than the diary, if thats even possible.

[erobitha]

In my opinion you're deluded.

Cheers.

Lets try and make some sense of this. So the electricians also found the watch, and a bag with a key inside? Where did you get the information that a bag was found with a key inside it? Getting back to the watch and Diary, you're 100 per cent certain the watch was inscribed by James Maybrick. You also concede that the Diary might not have been written by James Maybrick. So the person who wrote the Diary had knowledge that Maybrick had inscribed his name, and "I am Jack" inside the back cover of his watch. Failing that, are you saying that the person who wrote the Diary was privy to information that Maybrick was either JTR, or he, Maybrick, decided to have a bit of a laugh and inscribe his name , and "I am Jack" into the back of his watch. The person in question then decides to write a fictitious Diary in which Maybrick depicts himself as JTR? I'm finding it hard to construct a scenario using your interpretation of events. Care to oblige us with your version of events?

Isn't it infinitely more likely that Robbie Johnston with possibly the reluctant help of his brother, upon hearing of the Maybrick Diary decided to carry out a little bit of a hoax themselves?

Firstly, I never conceded the diary as NOT being by James Maybrick. The signature and aged brass particles are the things that locks me in on believeing James Maybrick inscribed that watch. If the scrapbook was proven beyond doubt (nowhere near yet in my opinion) to be a hoax it may have been placed there with the watch by persons unknown to one day be found. For what purpose I do not know.

The watch and the scrapbook (we can park the bag and key) were found at the same time. The watch ended up in an antiques shop not too far away (the bag and key in a different antiques shop locally) and eventually into Albert Johnsons hands in July 1992. No antiques dealer would admit to fencing stolen goods knowingly or by accident. Bad for business.

- My preferred scenario is James in effect left a confession hoard in a tin box found by an electrician (EL)
- I am open to the possibility the watch is real but placed with the other artefacts to bolster 'credibility'. Except EL split the hoard up thus rendering the purpose of the original placer pointless.

These are my working theories.

[caz]

So looking for a single irrefutable fact in the text is futile, since no single fact will be accepted as irrefutable.

Ah, but how do you know it won't be 'accepted' until one has actually been found?

Unfortunately for all the Barrett believers, a thousand near misses don't add up to a death blow, which for me means proving the Barretts faked the diary together, which should have been a piece of cake if that's what they did.

While I'm still waiting, I'll continue to assume there must be non-Barrett options from before 9th March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Therein is the paradox. I believe the watch 100%. I am willing to accept the scrapbook has challenges, main one for me being clear line of provenance. The whole 'alarms bells' thing is natural response. "Now there's two artefacts within a year!". I get the suspicion, but it does not invalidate the possibility remains that one or both are genuine. Or both are not. I believe the watch, and that is enough for me personally. The science is good and the signature is a sgtrong match to his marriage certiifcate (and other documents). However, as you say even if we could prove the watch was 100% genuine, that doesn't prove he was Jack. It can be easily argued that is not conclusive proof, it just perhaps gives him more legitimacy as a candidate with the 'experts'. Even then it would be marginal in some eyes. I believe that is the best we can hope for at this stage.

“Recognizing isn't at all like seeing; the two often don't even agree.”

hey Ero

I believe the watch 100%

I have the rippers/Maybricks knife. It has "JM" and "ripper" inscribed on the handle. The provenance is rock solid-I got it from a dead friend who got it from a dead friend.
PM me to work out payment arrangements.

[caz]

It seems that if you aren’t convinced that any of the so-called anachronisms are in fact such, then you are either:

a diary defender, or

an Orsam hater.

Or in my case, Gary, I refuse to admit to a secret belief that James Maybrick wrote the diary and was the ripper, while also secretly knowing the Barretts faked it in 1992.

Love,

Brain Dead & Crooked
X

[erobitha]

hey Ero



I have the rippers/Maybricks knife. It has "JM" and "ripper" inscribed on the handle. The provenance is rock solid-I got it from a dead friend who got it from a dead friend.
PM me to work out payment arrangements.

So the watch. Again...

- AGED brass particles were found in the base of the engravings. Not the sides, the base. Which means they were MOST LIKELY of considerable age
- The scratches were buffed (antiques dealer admits they did this) so the report suggests the buffing may have been done to try and age the scratches but that does not account for the AGED BRASS particles in the base of the engravings
- None of the scientific reports suggested the AGED BRASS particles could have been placed there by an old etching tool, which would have left brass particles embedded on the sides of the scratches as well as the base. They stayed in the base, embedded over time
- Instead, the experts theorise the only way they could have been faked was with expert knowledge and expensive machinery
- The signature matches a number of Maybrick's known signatures

So the hoax has to be done by someone who has access to Maybrick's signature (pre internet 1992), has a steady hand to ensure they copy the ornate M and the long loop in the Y and then the kick and loop in the K absolutely spot on. Then find an expert who has the tools and skills to embed AGED BRASS particles in the base of those scratches. Let's be honest, the Johnson brothers would not have that skill or expertise. So an expert does this for them with all the above. For what?

The watch remains in the family.

If your knife came with the same science as above I'd pay you happily for it.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

You previously mentioned that we can't rely on the examples of Anne's handwriting which we present in Inside Story, which pre date the 'disclosure' of the private correspondence in Orsam's possession. Could you clarify what you meant by this? What has the timing of Orsam's disclosure to do with it? If you meant that the correspondence from Anne is dated after the examples were provided to Keith and co, what was the date and again, why do you consider this relevant? Has Orsam disclosed this correspondence in all its glory, do you know? Or just one word, which in his view resembles the same word in the diary?

I would imagine, if Anne had written the diary, she'd have been every bit as careful when writing to Mike, after she'd left him and he was in full-on 'confession' mode, gathering the evidence for their joint enterprise, as she'd have been when providing Keith with examples of her handwriting. Why would she not have typed all such private and deeply personal letters, so Mike couldn't use them as evidence of her own handiwork in the diary?

I meant to add that, to be fair, it's far more often 'taken as gospel' round here that the scratched signature inside the watch, despite evidence to the contrary, was put there by a Johnson brother in 1993, without reference to any genuine examples of James Maybrick's signature, apparently on a whim and a prayer that it wouldn't immediately be exposed as an obvious forgery, without the need for expert eyes to confirm it.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

The comment on the timing was really just saying, as of the publication of Inside Story, the sample of writing pictured was the only sample on record, so it not matching isn't conspiracy or anything, it just plain didn't match. The specific date of Barrat getting Anne's private letters isn't that important, it's just after Inside Story, so it's new information to take into account.

It was just some friendly advice for Ike, which he seemed to take on board, can't say there was much more to it than that. (To be fair!)

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

hey Ero



I have the rippers/Maybricks knife. It has "JM" and "ripper" inscribed on the handle. The provenance is rock solid-I got it from a dead friend who got it from a dead friend.
PM me to work out payment arrangements.

That'll go nice with my Victorian "Self Portraiture Daguerreotype" of a mutton chopped surgeon in front of some graffiti. It's signed on the back, "Sutton was ere '88. Hammers for the cup"

[Observer]

Cheers.



Firstly, I never conceded the diary as NOT being by James Maybrick. The signature and aged brass particles are the things that locks me in on believeing James Maybrick inscribed that watch. If the scrapbook was proven beyond doubt (nowhere near yet in my opinion) to be a hoax it may have been placed there with the watch by persons unknown to one day be found. For what purpose I do not know.

The watch and the scrapbook (we can park the bag and key) were found at the same time. The watch ended up in an antiques shop not too far away (the bag and key in a different antiques shop locally) and eventually into Albert Johnsons hands in July 1992. No antiques dealer would admit to fencing stolen goods knowingly or by accident. Bad for business.

- My preferred scenario is James in effect left a confession hoard in a tin box found by an electrician (EL)
- I am open to the possibility the watch is real but placed with the other artefacts to bolster 'credibility'. Except EL split the hoard up thus rendering the purpose of the original placer pointless.

These are my working theories.

Well Mr E I think i'll stand up, scratch my head, and walk away. Now, I hope I can find that hole in the fence surrounding Cuckoo Lodge. I sneaked in here, and if they catch me it's a diet of Luminous trifle for the foreseeable future.

[erobitha]

Well Mr E I think i'll stand up, scratch my head, and walk away. Now, I hope I can find that hole in the fence surrounding Cuckoo Lodge. I sneaked in here, and if they catch me it's a diet of Luminous trifle for the foreseeable future.

Try not to disturb the yellow flamingo asleep on the deckchair on your way out.

[rjpalmer]

I believe they both came from the same place and that is from under the floorboards of Battlecrease House on Monday 9th March 1992. Who put them there I do not know. A bag was also found with an old key inside. The watch and the bag found it's way into the lcoal antiques trade and the scrabook found it's way in to Mike Barrett's hands. The artefacts were seperated by the finder who probably didn't think there was much value in an old watch (that had most likely stopped) or an old bag, but the old book could be worth something - esecially if it was signed by Jack The Ripper.

Ah, so now the plot thickens, and we must add Albert Johnson to Keith Skinner's nest of Battlecrease thieves.

[erobitha]

Ah, so now the plot thickens, and we must add Albert Johnson to Keith Skinner's nest of Battlecrease thieves.

Are you suggesting that Albert only CLAIMED to have bought the watch long before 9 March 1992? And that the evidence of that purchase has been fabricated?

And are you really sure you want to go there?

I hold Albert above any suspicion. Antiques dealers not so much. By the way the watch was purchased by Albert in July 1992.

[Harry D]

What if the watch had belonged to Maybrick, the owners caught wind of the diary and engraved the Jack stuff?