Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[caz]

Previously posted...

Tuesday 11^th October 1994
KS conversation with SH:
MB v. upset (w/b Sept 26^th 1994) by remarks in p/back about him being alcoholic…determined to do something serious about this he spends week in L’pool library trying to find source of O Costly Intercourse (p231 of Shirley’s p/back)…
Finds it but does not make a note of it. Phones Duocrave on Fri 30^th Sept…
Around this time his mother has read p/back – upset – throws MB out of house
Mon Oct 3^rd – MB phones Shirley – Shirley tells MB to go back to library and find the reference… By Oct 6^th Shirley has reference.
Source: copy of notes by KS, 3^rd - 12^th October 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)


Could this help to explain Shirley's 'quite by chance' remark to Keith, in the phone message he picked up on Monday 3rd October 1994?

If Shirley had suggested to Mike, in the immediate wake of his decision to confess, back in the June, that he do something constructive, such as look for a source of 'O costly...', then heard nothing more about it until three months later, because it was only after he had received and read the paperback, that he became determined to show everyone that he was not a useless drunk, then Shirley would not have been expecting it when he suddenly revealed that he had found the quote in the library. She'd have been extremely surprised, considering that nobody else had managed to track it down. And of course, we don't know exactly how Mike described it to Shirley over the phone. He could have told her he'd found it "quite by chance" during that initial call, and only later added that he'd spent that whole week specifically looking for it. If he didn't tell her beforehand that he was finally going to start looking, how would she have known that it was not 'quite by chance' that he'd found it, but as a direct consequence of the suggestion she had made three months previously?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don’t think my suggestion is outlandish at all; I think that it is what the notes suggest. I admit that it is only my interpretation.

I’m fairly certain that I had asked Harrison about this some 15 years ago, but her recollection of the chronology was not clear, which is entirely understandable considering everything that had gone on.

I’m open to persuasion if further documentation suggests otherwise.
[Note to self: when did the paperback come out?]

I don't have the actual date to hand, for when the 1994 paperback hit the shops, but Mike was sent his contractual copies on Thursday 15th September 1994:

Thursday 15^th September 1994
SH94 delivered to Smith Gryphon by printers.
Source: copy of letter from Robert Smith to KS, 16^th June 1995 (CAM/KS/1995)

Thursday 15^th September 1994
Covering letter from Robert Smith to MB, to enclose six contractual copies of SH94 paperback.
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/1994)

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No, Caz. I'm afraid you're wrong, and you misunderstood my point. You might want to follow your own advice and go back and re-read my post again...SLOWLY.

I have fully "digested" what you're saying. But all the above notes about the discussions between Harrison and Barrett were recorded in OCTOBER 1994.

I AGREE that she sent Barrett "back" [sic?] to the Library to get the page number at that time. (Whether Mike had gone in the first place might be debatable, so it may only be "back" from Shirley's perspective; she believes Mike's account of having been at the library, but that doesn’t prove that he was telling the truth).

To repeat: Shirley's claim that she had sent Barrett to the CLL in the first place, to discover the quote, is nowhere to be found in these October 1994 notes; it was a claim not recorded until her letter to Keith Skinner on 14 September 1995, which is 11 months after these events. (See below. Taken from your post #472).

So to repeat: the notes dating to Oct 1994 don't really explicitly state that Barrett had been sent to the library (the "first" time) on Shirley's orders. All they state is that Barrett told her he found the quote at the library (he could have been lying) and she told him to "go back" some three days later, because he didn't give the page number. This is entirely different from the claim that Barrett had been specifically asked to search the CLL by Shirley. Indeed, we are elsewhere told that Barrett went on his own volition because he had been humiliated due to his drink problem.

Now do you get it? I am only trying to establish that Barrett was telling two different sets of people two different tales on or around 30 September 1994. Sheesh! RP

- - - -
Thursday 14^th September 1995....

KS adds note: MB told SH and Sally on 22^nd June 1994 that he was going to say he forged diary – then, after Brough article and prior to paperback coming out, MB calmed down and SH told him to do something constructive – ie. source 'O costly…' quote.

RJP comments: This shows Harrison's memory of having Barrett 'do something constructive' (find the quote) dates to 14 September 1995, unless she has a CONTEMPORARY note from 22 June 1994 proving that Mike had been given this task. Indeed, her contemporary notes (from Oct 1994) indicated Barrett found it 'by chance.' How hard is this, Caz? What is there to dispute? I am only adhering to a strict analysis of the original sources. Isn’t this what we are supposed to do?

I am suggesting that on 14 Sept 1995 Shirley could have been remembering having asked Barrett to go to the library to find the quote (because SHE DID), but this was on 3 Oct 1994 and not in June 1994. I only say this because that is all that Keith's documentation shows.

Ciao.

PPS. My guess is only 3 people in the entire world would bother to analyze the tedium written above: me, Keith Skinner, and David B.

Afternoon RJ,

You wrote [and I quote]:

...it seems obvious that she is misremembering sending Mike to the CLL to get a photocopy of the correct page AFTER he had already revealed the correct citation over the phone.

That's what I was responding to, with my repeated timeline entries, showing that Shirley was NOT misremembering, because she DID send Mike to the library to find the correct details, and this was AFTER he had already told her over the phone that he'd found the quote there, but thought it was in volume 6. If you meant she was misremembering sending Mike to look for the quote in the first place, perhaps it would have been better to write that, instead of the above, and I would not have misunderstood you.

I don't know where you got the idea that he was sent to get a photocopy of the correct page, because you won't find that in my recent posts. Anne was later asked to take a photocopy of the page in the library. But that's beside the point. If Mike had been able to give Shirley the correct page of the correct volume over the phone, she wouldn't have needed to send him to the library to find the book containing the quote, so she would know what to ask for when she phoned the library. And if Mike had already phoned the library to check they had a copy, he wouldn't have needed to go at all, would he?

NOW do you get it? Sheesh back to you! This all came about because YOU suspected that Mike never went to the library AT ALL, because he only needed to phone them to check if they had the SAME volume he had allegedly lent to Jenny's son, before phoning Shirley with his bombshell. Do you see now that this doesn't work, because he gave Shirley the wrong volume number, which is why she sent him to the library to identify the right one?

STILL no evidence that Mike ever had a volume 2 until he managed to find the used copy he handed to Alan Gray in the December.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

There is an extraordinary character witness for Robbie Johnson on pg. 259 of Ripper Diary.

His name is Charlie Pulford.

“[Pulford] also claims that, had [Robbie] been considering a forgery, Robbie would have asked Pulford to do the scratchings for him and says that, as the brothers were so close, it would have been unthinkable anyway for Robbie to have done such a thing behind Albert’s back.”

What in the blazes is this?

Imagine going before the magistrate with that argument:

“Your honor, sir, I know Mick couldn’t have robbed the bank, because if he had, he would have asked me to stand lookout!”

Only in Liverpool! It’s like a line out of a comedy routine...

[rjpalmer]

Secondly, motive dear boy, motive...No-one disputes Robbie's character was questionable. But it wasn't his watch. It was Albert's. And he never sold it.

Thanks, but you might want to alert Linder, Brown, and Skinner to this fact, for on page 100 of Ripper Diary they write…

“accompanied by locally based researcher Carol Emmas and co-owner of the watch Robbie Johnson….”


In the beginning the watch was Albert’s.

Before the dust cleared it was only 25% Albert’s. Which leaves three other owner/suspects, two of whom I think we can safely eliminate from our enquiries.

At some point the watch must have been appraised at £60,000 (Robbie’s quarter share represents twenty-five percent of £60,000) which is a significantly larger figure than the $40,000 US offered by the Texas collector Robert E. Davis, which could suggest an alternative reason why his offer was rejected.

The pound was worth more to the dollar in 1995 than now, but, even without doing all the math, Davis must have low-balled the Johnsons with a counteroffer of less than 50% of the appraisal, if we assume that Robbie’s eventual £15,000 share was 25% of the original asking price. (Which also assumes that Feldman, if he was the buyer of Robbie’s share, paid the full price).

Ironically, in the end, Robbie made off with more money by the Johnsons NOT selling the watch to Davis; if the sale had taken place, his share only would have been £10,000. But Robbie cleared £15,000, despite no apparent investment and no original claim to anything.

Surely you must find these circumstances curious and worrying? But obviously we are of two different minds.

Anyway, someone might alert KS to Post #491, in case he wants to investigate it.

[Iconoclast]

I think we are beyond vinegar and an old etching tool here.

Neither Roger nor you mention the sticky-backed plastic, Ero, but we’ll take it as read that it was also required.

For all non-Brits and Brits of a very modern ilk, sticky-backed plastic was once the pre-requisite of every hair-brained plan, including building rockets from washing-up bottles and wallets from old socks. Still, it got me a full set of badges so what do I care?

[erobitha]

Now, using simple logic, if the scratches were made by an etching tool in 1889, they could have been made by an etching tool in 1910, or in 1955, or in 1992. At some point, the etching tool left behind the particle. There is no dispute.

The only real question is whether the brass particle was already dark when it had been left behind by the tool or whether it had darkened ‘in situ,’ and, if the latter, whether this darkening took place over decades, or whether it took place instantaneously by the introduction of some corrosive and darkening solvent, such as vinegar, etc., that one might have naturally and innocently used during a cleaning regime.

...and so the cycle continues. https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...tml?showpage=4

Firstly, read the exact words written Turgoose in the report. He does not say a forgery could be achieved in the way you suggested, but rather through a multi-stage process with considerable scientific awareness and knowledge. I think we are beyond vinegar and an old etching tool here. But somehow your scientific knowledge is greater than this expert. If so perhaops you could burden me with the qualifications in which you possess in which to over rule this expert's advice, then perhaps you would have grounds for me to consider your expert testimony over his. Does your expertise also exceed that of Bristol University? http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2004/573.html

Secondly, motive dear boy, motive. If we may overlook your expertise on how it could be forged and go with the good Doctor's suggestion - why? Why would someone go to all the trouble and expert knowledge to do such a thing? More importantly who? Robbie Johnson and hios school microspcope kit? No-one disputes Robbie's character was questionable. But it wasn't his watch. It was Albert's. And he never sold it.

The watch remains an incovenient truth.

[rjpalmer]

am I not right in thinking that the 'J. Maybrick' signature - unlike the handwriting of the scrapbook - was a very good approximation of Maybrick's known signature (i.e., on his Will)

Priceless, Ike. The allegedly forged will is used to prove the authenticity of the non-forged watch. Only in Ripperology can such pretzels of consciousness exist and flourish and reproduce.

For you, my friend: re: the ultra-tiny brass particle found by Dr. Turgoose in the ‘M.K.’ markings on the watch.

This on-going campaign about the hoaxer needing great technical ability, a neutron microscope, etc., to ‘implant’ this particle has always struck me as a bizarre, desperate, and misleading suggestion.

No one is claiming, or has ever claimed, that the particle was deliberately implanted. I can only imagine that Turgoose must have been responding to a question that some innocent soul had posed at some point: ‘Could a hoaxer have implanted it’? Obviously, the answer would be no—or at least the (correct) assumption would be that it is wildly wildly unlikely.

So, I think we can all agree: there is no doubt whatsoever that the particle found by Turgoose had been left behind by the etching tool. No sane person would suggest otherwise.

Now, using simple logic, if the scratches were made by an etching tool in 1889, they could have been made by an etching tool in 1910, or in 1955, or in 1992. At some point, the etching tool left behind the particle. There is no dispute.

The only real question is whether the brass particle was already dark when it had been left behind by the tool or whether it had darkened ‘in situ,’ and, if the latter, whether this darkening took place over decades, or whether it took place instantaneously by the introduction of some corrosive and darkening solvent, such as vinegar, etc., that one might have naturally and innocently used during a cleaning regime.

You appear to be using Feldman’s technique of suggesting a wildly improbably scenario (that no one has ever suggested) in order to dismiss the plausibility of a modern hoax. Isn’t this generally referred to as a ‘straw argument’?

I remain yours, &tc.,

The Great Unpersuaded

[c.d.]

It's not what's on the menu that you have to worry about, Roger - it's WHAT'S-ON-THE-MENU you have to fear ...

Yes, and beware of menus found under floorboards.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

The drive-thru of the Persuasion Café is open for business; I'm just not ever seeing anything on the menu that looks appetizing.

It's not what's on the menu that you have to worry about, Roger - it's WHAT'S-ON-THE-MENU you have to fear ...

[rjpalmer]

Ey'up - I see the Exaggeration Shoppe has evidently been let out of lockdown ...

The drive-thru of the Persuasion Café is open for business; I'm just not ever seeing anything on the menu that looks appetizing.

[Iconoclast]

To those who so casually dismiss the Maybrick watch with the thoroughly cavalier and wholly unjustified notion that Robbie Johnson did the aged-particle embedding in Albert's back bedroom with a handily-placed aged implement, etc., am I not right in thinking that the 'J. Maybrick' signature - unlike the handwriting of the scrapbook - was a very good approximation of Maybrick's known signature (i.e., on his Will)?

If this were so, I can't help but wonder at the remarkable depths of Robbie's research before doing his clever metallurgy magic.

[rjpalmer]

To Keith S.

I found the following email from your old friend Melvin Harris, dated Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 2:54 PM


Dear RJP:
Please note that the Sphere book was in the Barett's house 2 years before the Diary emerged. This is confirmed by his sister and not disputed at any time by Anne Barrett.

Melvin Harris.

I don't know Melvin's precise source, though obviously he was implying that either he or Gray had questioned Barrett's sister. I leave it up to you to decide whether or not she (not Jenny Morrison) was able to confirm Barrett's account.

[Iconoclast]

I'm open to persuasion ...

Ey'up - I see the Exaggeration Shoppe has evidently been let out of lockdown ...

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz -- I should let it go, but let me put it this way; maybe it will help.

You seem willing to believe that when Shirley Harrison asked Paul Dodd about his floorboards being lifted, and he said it was in 1989-90, he was misremembering an event that actually took place in March 1992. Correct? You are willing to accept that Dodd’s memory may have been flawed about the chronology, even though all these events only happened as recently as 3 years or so.

And yet, at the same time, you find it outlandish that I am suggesting that when Keith asked Shirley in Sept 1995 about whether she had asked Mike to search the library for ‘O Costly,’ she is misremembering an event that happened on 3 Oct 1994, wrongly attributing it to late June or early July 1994—before the Crashaw citation had been discovered.

I don’t think my suggestion is outlandish at all; I think that it is what the notes suggest. I admit that it is only my interpretation.

I’m fairly certain that I had asked Harrison about this some 15 years ago, but her recollection of the chronology was not clear, which is entirely understandable considering everything that had gone on.

I’m open to persuasion if further documentation suggests otherwise.

[Note to self: when did the paperback come out?]