Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[caz]

Wednesday 29^th March 1995
Extracts from typed letter from MB to Doreen M:
A lady – not Jenny – has been looking after MB.
MB says he can't help still being in love with Anne.
MB shows sense of humour over Robert's one-time suggestion that he write a book about what has gone on behind the scenes of the diary: 'Iv'e caused one Nigthmare by producing the Dairy, you could always give him an other by asking him to ediot this lot….' [sic]
MB asks if Doreen now understands why he wanted them all to believe Anne wrote diary – simply to get back at her and hurt her the way she hurt him.
'We all know Tony gave me that Diary.' But MB has yet to see proof that Anne is related to Florie. MB researched diary and spent sleepless nights over it – not Anne.
She leaves him, then less than eight months later she is some sort of relative of Florie.
MB complains about the world knowing he is an alcoholic because of SH's book.

Thursday 20^th July 1995
Extract from Mike Barrett, Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner and Martin Howells in conversation at Baker Street:
MB: I am not trying to get back at Anne. Anne tried to get back at me for something I didn't do. She accused me of sleeping with Jenny and I never did. So I said, "Sod it, I wrote the bleedin' diary and to hell with it all."

Thursday 14^th September 1995
Memo from SH to 'The Team':
Jenny's address and phone number given.
MB reported finding 'O costly…' quote on 30^th September 1994.
Sally and SH saw MB at Jenny's house on 22^nd June 1994.
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.

More shortly...

Love,

Caz
X

[StevenOwl]

Hello Steven,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Not all that much seems to be known about Jenny, but I can let you have the following information, which I have taken from my diary timeline for 1994:

Friday 17^th June 1994
Extract of letter from Doreen Montgomery to Anne Graham:
Doreen has learned of emergence of Jenny in MB's life:
'It would be good to feel that at least she is keeping him off the drink...'

Wednesday 22^nd June 1994
Shirley H and Sally see MB at new girlfriend Jenny's house. MB tells them he is going to say he forged diary.

Tuesday 13^th September 1994
Extract of letter from Doreen M to MB:
'I don’t want to keep on harping on the amount of money you have got through, but I do have to say that £40,000 odd is a considerable sum and I just can't bear to think of it having been wasted. The small amounts paid out – for Jenny's car, for example – are a drop in the ocean in comparison.'

Wednesday 12^th October 1994
KS notes ansafone message left by SH re 'O Costly…' quote:
Shirley phoned Jenny (MB's current girlfriend) who corroborated MB's story that during the summer he had taken books around to Jenny's son, James, who was studying for his O levels. MB thought books (which he had acquired for Hillsborough Disaster Auction) might help him – but, in fact, they were too advanced. Anne apparently denies all knowledge of these books and the auction.* During Mike’s serious week at library, when he found the reference, he later recalled that he had these particular books, which were the ones he had loaned to James. Mike insisted he discovered the reference for himself at the library - and nobody did it for him.
Mike has appt this pm with solicitor (to discuss divorce) – will take book with him.
According to SH, Jenny says that MB was trying to use the book to prove he forged diary, but Jenny doesn't believe him.

[*Note for Mandy Rice-J Palmer re Anne's denial, to save time later: Well she would, wouldn't she?]

Wednesday 12^th October 1994
KS scribbles a note for himself:

1. Corroborate that MB has been spending a lot of time at Library.
2. Ask librarian whether she remembers MB pestering her about books.
3. Ask Anne
4. Ask MB to produce book

Thursday 13^th October 1994
Liz Winter, assistant to MB’s solicitor, Richard Bark-Jones, has thirty-minute phone call with MB. From her notes:
“O sweet [sic] intercourse of death”, Vol 2 P 184. In diary. Santa [sic] Maria 1643-1652. Found phrase in library.

Tuesday 6^th December 1994
Alan Gray & Mike Barrett: audio cassette recording
The Sphere volume containing 'O costly…' is handed over to Alan Gray at MB's solicitors.

Next post will be from 1995 and beyond...

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz, fascinating as always. So Jenny confirmed that MB did indeed give her books which he'd obtained with the intention of raising money for the Hillsborough fund, but not exactly what those books were? I reckon the story is broadly true, but that the Sphere volume wasn't among said books.

[caz]

Wednesday 18^th January 1995
Extracts from a recorded conversation between MB and KS, SH, Sally Evemy and an independent witness:
MB admits making false statement to Brough to "get back at Anne" for not speaking to him or letting him see Caroline from January to May 1994.
Says he knows diary is genuine.
Says he made up stuff about forging diary and watch just to "kick up the ****".
He is bitter about his efforts to work out diary author’s identity "night in, night out", hour after hour, while Anne was upstairs.
MB confirms the "bloody great big blazing argument" with Anne over getting diary published, not understanding why she was so against it if it was genuine, as he believed it to be, after all his efforts night after night.
MB bemoans his debts etc. SH asks what happened to all his diary money. He says he "pissed it up against the wall" because Anne wasn't with him.
MB says he wants to prove diary a forgery to "get back at Anne", but is frustrated that he can't do so. Again expresses anger towards PF for various threats, phone-calls and pressure.
KS asks MB about Alan Gray. Says he found him through Yellow Pages, wanting a private detective to find Anne. Says Gray got caught up in diary story. MB gave Gray list of ripperologists, including Melvin Harris.
MB says he made up story about Outhwaite & Litherland while drunk, but is still prepared to "kick up the ****" and swear diary is forgery until he can see Anne.
Sees it as his only way to achieve this.
Talks about his kidney problems, low self-esteem, role-reversal with Anne working, all pre-diary. Wanted a bash at writing through enterprise allowance scheme. Felt Anne was taking something away from him by having to step in and tidy up his interview articles. He "failed miserably" doing it by himself and ended up even more frustrated.
Then MB organised auction for Hillsborough disaster fund (from April 1989), among items received from Sphere Books were volumes of poetry, too "heavy and deep" for him to understand.
Kept these back, later giving them to Jenny, a friend of his, for her son. Says while reading SH's book, he came across 'oh costly' reference in same volumes in library. Checking at Jenny's, he found volumes matched. Also says he found same volumes, "piles of them", in an out-of-print bookshop. Proud of his find, his attitude is, "I've found it, so screw the lot of 'em".
MB says he didn't take diary seriously at first. Never heard of 'Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' before SH mentioned it to him. Says TD was dead before MB connected James Maybrick to diary. Says he concentrated on ripper stuff first, not thinking of Liverpool angle until later.
Before SH got involved, he had checked ripper books such as Rumbelow, Paul Harrison, A-Z, Stephen Knight. But not John Morrison (when asked specifically by SH).
MB denies ability to write diary, citing alcoholism, lack of skills. Made up story of which ink he used, again to "get back at Anne". Says he chose Bluecoat Chambers for convenience, simply because of the one-way system.
Says he lied about taking photos from front of journal, again the lie was to "get back at Anne".
MB says he discovered JtR's identity, only to end up with "no marriage, no daughter, no money, no nothing".
Hates world knowing about his alcoholism, marital problems etc.
MB says he is broke, deeply hurt by Anne's actions, and intends to "fight back".

More in a bit...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

How much is known about Jenny Morrison, Caz? Seems to me if you take her out of the equation there's no corroboration for Mike already owning a copy of the Sphere volume. Did anyone other than SH ever get the chance to question her?

Hello Steven,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Not all that much seems to be known about Jenny, but I can let you have the following information, which I have taken from my diary timeline for 1994:

Friday 17^th June 1994
Extract of letter from Doreen Montgomery to Anne Graham:
Doreen has learned of emergence of Jenny in MB's life:
'It would be good to feel that at least she is keeping him off the drink...'

Wednesday 22^nd June 1994
Shirley H and Sally see MB at new girlfriend Jenny's house. MB tells them he is going to say he forged diary.

Tuesday 13^th September 1994
Extract of letter from Doreen M to MB:
'I don’t want to keep on harping on the amount of money you have got through, but I do have to say that £40,000 odd is a considerable sum and I just can't bear to think of it having been wasted. The small amounts paid out – for Jenny's car, for example – are a drop in the ocean in comparison.'

Wednesday 12^th October 1994
KS notes ansafone message left by SH re 'O Costly…' quote:
Shirley phoned Jenny (MB's current girlfriend) who corroborated MB's story that during the summer he had taken books around to Jenny's son, James, who was studying for his O levels. MB thought books (which he had acquired for Hillsborough Disaster Auction) might help him – but, in fact, they were too advanced. Anne apparently denies all knowledge of these books and the auction.* During Mike’s serious week at library, when he found the reference, he later recalled that he had these particular books, which were the ones he had loaned to James. Mike insisted he discovered the reference for himself at the library - and nobody did it for him.
Mike has appt this pm with solicitor (to discuss divorce) – will take book with him.
According to SH, Jenny says that MB was trying to use the book to prove he forged diary, but Jenny doesn't believe him.

[*Note for Mandy Rice-J Palmer re Anne's denial, to save time later: Well she would, wouldn't she?]

Wednesday 12^th October 1994
KS scribbles a note for himself:

1. Corroborate that MB has been spending a lot of time at Library.
2. Ask librarian whether she remembers MB pestering her about books.
3. Ask Anne
4. Ask MB to produce book

Thursday 13^th October 1994
Liz Winter, assistant to MB’s solicitor, Richard Bark-Jones, has thirty-minute phone call with MB. From her notes:
“O sweet [sic] intercourse of death”, Vol 2 P 184. In diary. Santa [sic] Maria 1643-1652. Found phrase in library.

Tuesday 6^th December 1994
Alan Gray & Mike Barrett: audio cassette recording
The Sphere volume containing 'O costly…' is handed over to Alan Gray at MB's solicitors.

Next post will be from 1995 and beyond...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Keith asks if the sender of the Lusk Letter knew it was going to be publicly advertised, or if Mike knew that his letter to Shirley would be transcribed and put up on the message boards 15 years later, for someone to pounce on a single word and suggest he was only pretending to be illiterate.

Apologies all. I realised in horror that my arithmetic was badly wrong here. My mother was a strict maths teacher, so she would have been very cross.

I meant 25 years later, not 15. Shows you how long this has been rumbling on, doesn't it?

More later...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Mike Barrett's "confessions" are strewn with such inconsistencies. The one that tickled me the most was his spelling of always as all ways, whilst in the same breath there are several fairly difficult words spelt correctly.

Also take a look at this from his 1995 confession

"When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out"

No spelling mistakes here. examined spelled correctly, absorbed, compass, you get the idea.

A couple of paragraphs down we have this

We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust.

I think what Barrett is doing here is to emphasie in a disstintive way he's no good at spelling.

Hi Observer,

The only slight problem with your observations is that Mike's sworn affidavit was typed up by Alan Gray. Keith has the original six paged blue carbon typed copy which Gray gave to him.

Do you now think what Gray was doing here was to 'emphasie' in a 'disstinctive' way his own shortcomings at spelling, or Mike's? Whose side was he on?

This would support my previous observation that poor spellers sometimes get words right, and they sometimes get words wrong, because if they knew the difference... you know the rest.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

How much is known about Jenny Morrison, Caz? Seems to me if you take her out of the equation there's no corroboration for Mike already owning a copy of the Sphere volume. Did anyone other than SH ever get the chance to question her?

Hi Steven,

That's a great question. Yes, if we took Jenny out of the equation, we'd only have Mike's word for it that he owned a copy before early December 1994, when he finally handed Alan Gray the used one. But can we take her out of the equation? If I may, I'll return to this tomorrow, when I have looked afresh at what was done at the time to try and ascertain which books Jenny may have been given by Mike, during the summer of his discontent.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just to add to the above, R.J, do you believe Mike's correspondence could be divided into two distinct piles - letters he deliberately wrote badly, whenever he was denying that he forged the diary, and letters he wrote well enough to show he was capable, whenever he was claiming to have created the text? Or would this have been blindingly obvious to anyone he was writing to, depending on whether he was lying to them or telling the truth at the time? And would this have been even more blindingly obvious to anyone reading a whole array of his letters, sent to different people at different times? You might want to consider whether he deliberately kept his literacy at a low level for the sake of consistency [because he didn't really want to be charged with forgery, for instance], or whether the boy just couldn't help it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As Mandy Rice-Davies said when she was told that Lord Aston had denied sleeping with her, or even knowing her.

"Well he would, wouldn't he?"

* * *

Hi Caz, I do have a quick question (actually several, but I will limit it to one). You write that

Keith "retained the spelling throughout" in his transcription of Mike's undated letter of October 1994. Are the upper and lower cases of the lettering also retained?

The first thing that strikes me is that Barrett appears to be able to correctly spell the word IDENTITY...when he wants. And only a few lines after botching it badly.

I find this somewhat suspicious, kind of like the illiterate 'Lusk Letter' correspondent being familiar with the silent 'k' of knife.

First of all, I have just returned to this thread and will be reading the latest posts in the order in which they were written, so please bear with me as I attempt to address any outstanding questions. Thanks everyone.

Hi R.J,

"Well he would, wouldn't he?"

That was kind of missing the point, though, wasn't it? Towards the end of 1994, Mike was proving himself pretty much incapable of telling a straight story and sticking to it. I'm sure that wasn't helped by the booze, but evidently you believe he was trying to tell the truth about his part in creating the diary, even though he was obviously finding it increasingly hard to remember the salient details and give a coherent and accurate account. And yet, when it comes to his 'lie' - as you believe it to be - about never having heard of Ryan's book until Shirley mentioned it to him, which he told on at least two occasions, either side of the forgery claims he made between June 1994 and January 1995, you can readily accept that he was more than capable of keeping that particular story straight as a poker and sticking with it, when it suited him to do so. Keith sat talking with Mike for 3 hours in April 1994, not realising that just two months later he would claim to have faked the diary. During the interview Mike told Keith that the only book he had read with any Maybrick content was Tales of Liverpool and that it was Shirley who had suggested he look at Ryan's book - the same book you believe he used for creating the diary text. Then came the madness of the next few months, and on January 18th 1995, he met up with Keith and Shirley, among others, and repeated his 'lie' almost word for word, that he'd never heard of the book until Shirley mentioned it to him. Shirley was there, so presumably she'd have been able to contradict Mike if she'd never pointed him in Ryan's direction, just as he was still claiming. That doesn't prove he was telling the truth about his initial ignorance of the book, but it does demonstrate he was capable of keeping this story straight, when talking to Keith and Shirley, just 13 days after he got in such a complete mucking fuddle with his affidavit, that he put the 11-day miracle before Tony Devereux's death, which he dated back to 1990:

Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper... During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.

The answer to your question about Keith's transcription of Mike's letter, is that it is one of many which appear to Keith to have been written while he was angry and drunk. A subjective opinion, but there are also letters from Mike which appear controlled and not so frenetic. In some letters he admits and apologises for sending previous letters while drunk. Throughout, Keith tried to follow Mike’s spelling and his use of upper and lower case lettering, but he says it is very difficult because sometimes Mike prints words, sometimes he writes them, and sometimes they are a combination of both and it is often difficult to differentiate between upper and lower case. Keith asks if the sender of the Lusk Letter knew it was going to be publicly advertised, or if Mike knew that his letter to Shirley would be transcribed and put up on the message boards 15 years later, for someone to pounce on a single word and suggest he was only pretending to be illiterate.

My own view is that a genuinely poor speller might have a good idea when they have botched a word badly, but they don't know - without being able to use a dictionary - when they get it right. If they knew that, they wouldn't be a poor speller. I've seen many such examples, where there was nothing to suggest a deliberate attempt to dumb down. I recently saw someone spelling the Eiffel Tower one way, then another way, while they were hosting a virtual pub quiz, in front of around 170,000 viewers, so while you might find this 'somewhat suspicious', I doubt the host was even aware of their mistake.

A perfectly literate person, on the other hand, would be able to spell a word consistently badly, especially if they were intent on giving someone a false impression of their abilities. I see the Lusk letter in a different light because it was anonymous and intended to cause mischief, rather than to deceive Lusk into thinking the sender was genuinely semi-literate.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Great line from Erobitha there: "Half truths, false memories, criminal endeavour and mixed testimonies make it extremely tough. But all of this is natural human behaviour, it is more odd if everyone was precise to exact dates and times and testimonies"

Take that and apply it to any aspect of the case, past or present, be it testimonies, private correspondence or memoirs. Or a man in a pub.

[erobitha]

Firstly you're correct the watch was purchased in Wallasey in July 1992. Mr Murphy the owner, had been given it by his father in law a number of years prior to that. Seeing that the floorboards in Battlecrease House were lifted in March 1992 how could the watch have surfaced from underneath the floorboards at that date?

Where did you get the information that the original owner of the watch, the man who sold it to Mr Murphy's father in Law, had a Liverpool accent? Feldman tried to interview Murphy's father in law at the time but he was in bad health, so it would interesting to know where this information came from. Not that it matters much, as Lancaster is only up the road from Liverpool.

This is where I do have to admit some challenge in my own timeline of events. I do believe the watch was part of the haul found at Battlecrease House and for it to emerge 5 months later in a local shop would account for "convenient" timing of the find in conjunction with the diary and I do believe this. I can't use the Murphy's testimony to suit my own case if what they say are at odds with my own belief, so I have to admit my challeneges here. It is entirely possible I am wrong and the watch was not in Battlecrease House. The house was cleared in the 1970's by a local antiques dealer who I believe also came into contact with a number of the artefacts in 1992. I do not have his name (yet), but there could be some kind of link to the shop where the watch was found, which is what I suspect. No reputable antiques dealer would admit to knowingly fencing stolen goods. Which I believe this one did. So this leads to me having some distrust myself in the Murphy's testimony too. These testimonies were recorded by Keith Skinner for Shirley Harrison and in the Diary of The Jack Ripper book.

With regard to the actual engravings, it's quite simple, an aged inscribing tool was used to engrave them, it's as simple as that.

It's not. Because the same particles have to appear towards the top and along the inner walls of the scratches, not just at the base.They were black through oxidisation and having been there for some considerable time. You cant buffer the sides of the scratches.

However, one man did inspect the scratches, and that was Mr Dundas, who stated that the words "Maybrick," or "I am Jack" were not scratched into the back of the watch when he overhauled it. But now you're going to tell me that the watch Dundas overhauled was not the one Johnston bought. The thing is he was adamant it was.

I don't believe Dundas remembers the correct watch, I believe a number of details he dscribed about the watch were later to be proved to be incorrect such as it being a ladies watch and with verity printed on the front.

Now to Dr Turgoose, he reported that the edges of the Maybrick scratches were smooth and polished out. He then went on to say that they could have been artificially aged by polishing but it would have been a complex multi stage process, heaven knows why. The point is Dr Turgoose is a scientist, and he was looking at the scratches themselves he seems to have missed the fact that the scratches are on the inside back cover of the watch. Now the watch is I believe 18 carat gold, gold doesn't tarnish, especially so on the inside back cover. Who on earth would constantly polish the inside back cover of an 18 carat gold pocket watch to the extent that it wore down the edges of the engravings? What's the point, the inside back cover is not on display. I know someone who would do that, someone who thought that the engravings they had produced looked a bit new and so they decided to age them by polishing them. They would have done better to leave them, for if they had been produced in 1888/89 being on the inside back cover they would have looked as pristine as the day they were engraved, and thus more authentic.

Or simply someone like Ron Murphy who claimed he did it to try and buffer the scratches out in the hope it would sell better without the obvious scratches.

Unpicking the real chain of events from what is fact and what is fiction has made the whole provenance of the Maybrick artefacts almost an impossible task and therefore has made them near imposible to validate. I cannot disagree with that. Half truths, false memories, criminal endeavour (theft not forgery) and mixed testimonies make it extremely tough. But all of this is natural human behaviour, it is more odd if everyone was precise to exact dates and times and testimonies. My only hope now is either Eddie Lyons eventually comes clean or there are better scientific tests available today that can offer more clarity around dating the watch and the diary.

It's one thing believing, it's a whole lot harder proving!

[Observer]

How can you forge aged brass particles in the base of engravings that have been there "for some considerable time". In fact tens of years was stated in one report? It is only likely possible with highly specialist knowledge and expensiove machinery to even attempt such a thing. "The scratches could have been very, very old and were certainly not new but it is difficult to be precise," Dr Wild said. He also told Robert Smith privately as he could could not get quite the smoking gun of precise dating accurate enough to say so in his report, but he believed there was every chance they from 1888.
Stanley Dangar, a former member of the British Horological Society was originally tasked (allegedly) by a well-known Ripperologist with an opposing view to help prove the watch was a fake. He tried to prove these aged brass engravings could be faked by trying to recreate the results in a lab in Germany. He failed miserably. Dangar later became a proponent of both the watch and diary.
Albert bought the watch from an antiques shop in Wallasey owned by Ron & Suzanne Murphy. The Murphy's claim the watch was part of stock given to them by Suzanne's father who owned an antiques shop in Lancaster called "Firth Antiques". He in turn claims he bought from a chap with a Liverpool accent. Are all of these people in on the forgery as well? Are they all complicit in this elaborate hoax? Everyone of them remember the scratches in the back.

Firstly you're correct the watch was purchased in Wallasey in July 1992. Mr Murphy the owner, had been given it by his father in law a number of years prior to that. Seeing that the floorboards in Battlecrease House were lifted in March 1992 how could the watch have surfaced from underneath the floorboards at that date?

With regard to the actual engravings, it's quite simple, an aged inscribing tool was used to engrave them, it's as simple as that.

Where did you get the information that the original owner of the watch, the man who sold it to Mr Murphy's father in Law, had a Liverpool accent? Feldman tried to interview Murphy's father in law at the time but he was in bad health, so it would interesting to know where this information came from. Not that it matters much, as Lancaster is only up the road from Liverpool.

Everyone of them remembers scratches in the back? Yes, but there are scratches to the back of the watch in a neater hand than those associated with the "Maybrick" scratches, that is they are not associated with the Maybrick group, and seeing that none of them knew specifically what any of the scratches consisted of, you're jumping the gun somewhat to say that what they were looking at were The Maybrick group of scratches, they didn't know that. However, one man did inspect the scratches, and that was Mr Dundas, who stated that the words "Maybrick," or "I am Jack" were not scratched into the back of the watch when he overhauled it. But now you're going to tell me that the watch Dundas overhauled was not the one Johnston bought. The thing is he was adamant it was.

Now to Dr Turgoose, he reported that the edges of the Maybrick scratches were smooth and polished out. He then went on to say that they could have been artificially aged by polishing but it would have been a complex multi stage process, heaven knows why. The point is Dr Turgoose is a scientist, and he was looking at the scratches themselves he seems to have missed the fact that the scratches are on the inside back cover of the watch. Now the watch is I believe 18 carat gold, gold doesn't tarnish, especially so on the inside back cover. Who on earth would constantly polish the inside back cover of an 18 carat gold pocket watch to the extent that it wore down the edges of the engravings? What's the point, the inside back cover is not on display. I know someone who would do that, someone who thought that the engravings they had produced looked a bit new and so they decided to age them by polishing them. They would have done better to leave them, for if they had been produced in 1888/89 being on the inside back cover they would have looked as pristine as the day they were engraved, and thus more authentic.

[erobitha]

I am aware that Albert Johnston owned the watch, so if it is a forgery, and I fully believe it is, then it's takes some believing that he was not aware that it had been doctored. Whats more to state that Maybrick was Jack The Ripper is nothing short of slander. There's not the slightest evidence, apart from the hoax of a Diary, to suggest he was Jack The Ripper. Also lets look at the whiter than white Albert Johnston. If you believe that the watch came from under the floorboards of Battlecrease House then that makes Albert Johnston a liar because he said he bought it from a jeweler in Chester.

How can you forge aged brass particles in the base of engravings that have been there "for some considerable time". In fact tens of years was stated in one report? It is only likely possible with highly specialist knowledge and expensiove machinery to even attempt such a thing. "The scratches could have been very, very old and were certainly not new but it is difficult to be precise," Dr Wild said. He also told Robert Smith privately as he could could not get quite the smoking gun of precise dating accurate enough to say so in his report, but he believed there was every chance they from 1888.
Stanley Dangar, a former member of the British Horological Society was originally tasked (allegedly) by a well-known Ripperologist with an opposing view to help prove the watch was a fake. He tried to prove these aged brass engravings could be faked by trying to recreate the results in a lab in Germany. He failed miserably. Dangar later became a proponent of both the watch and diary.
Albert bought the watch from an antiques shop in Wallasey owned by Ron & Suzanne Murphy. The Murphy's claim the watch was part of stock given to them by Suzanne's father who owned an antiques shop in Lancaster called "Firth Antiques". He in turn claims he bought from a chap with a Liverpool accent. Are all of these people in on the forgery as well? Are they all complicit in this elaborate hoax? Everyone of them remember the scratches in the back.

[Observer]

The owner of the watch was Albert, not Robbie - regardless of Robbie's 'share' or whatever story he concoted was or what type of "earner" he thought he could make. A known criminal Robbie was, Albert was not. It was Albert's watch. He bought it. It was his.

To then go on and and claim "of course Albert Johnson was complicit in the forging of the watch" is nothing short of slander. If Albert "bottled it" why did he just not let Robbie have the watch and let him handle it and be done with the whole thing? Robbie by all accounts would not "have lost his bottle" if large sums were being offered.

I am aware that Albert Johnston owned the watch, so if it is a forgery, and I fully believe it is, then it's takes some believing that he was not aware that it had been doctored. Whats more to state that Maybrick was Jack The Ripper is nothing short of slander. There's not the slightest evidence, apart from the hoax of a Diary, to suggest he was Jack The Ripper. Also lets look at the whiter than white Albert Johnston. If you believe that the watch came from under the floorboards of Battlecrease House then that makes Albert Johnston a liar because he said he bought it from a jeweler in Chester.

[erobitha]

But if it all came from the floor of Battlecrease, then Anne Graham was lying about it being "in the family for years", which bolsters the case for the Barretts hoax, and so it goes on.

Or, if Anne was being truthful, she knew nothing of the watch, so the timing becomes very relevant.

If the Johnstone's gave a story along the lines of ' we thought the watch was odd, but only when the story of the Maybrick Diary hit the headlines did we connect the dots' then maybe the timing issue could be swept away, but like everyone else in the whole affair, they appear to have played games with people, thus opening the door for suspicion.

Regardless of any particular stance on the Diary, it couldn't have been in the Graham family for years and under the floorboards at Battlecrease. Unless it's Schrödinger's diary.

What has happened is ordinary working class people came into possession of artefacts that are bigger than they could comprehend due to such heightened interest in all things JTR (why we are here debating after all) and as such people are falible and do have failings. They see an opprtunity to try and make a quick buck. The workmen. Mike Barrett. Anne Graham. Robbie Johnson. All of which ultimately failed to get the financial rewards they may have believed were possible. Albert Johnson was not in that cohort and it is his upstanding character that adds weight to the watch, not to mention the compelling science!

I do not buy Anne Graham's story of the diary being her father's and handed down. I think Feldman was offering her a way to get something out of this whole debacle and between themselves concoted these theories with no basis in fact from any of the "evidence" I have seen.

Eddie Lyons refuses to co-operate even after all this time, but perhaps even if he did tell the truth of what was found in Battlecrease and what happened to ALL the artefacts upon discovery, there will always be those finding another reason to not accept his story.

Sadly, I fear the truth of James Maybrick will be buried under the mess that was created in handling these artefacts right from the start and consigned to "forgery" because fallible people made fatal errors of judgment. Doesn't mean the artefacts are not true.