Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Observer]

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.

I might have jumped the gun here, after having a brief look at the Diary I noticed the following words. Never the less. Un do. In tact.

When Mike Barrett wrote All ways in one of his confessions, perhaps he'd slipped subconsciously into Ripper Diary mode.

[Observer]

I think if you check the archives, I have always consistently said that Robbie Johnson was the one pushing the sale of the watch for financial gain, so please don't twist my words. I am willing to accept that Albert Johnson was generally honest.

I believe you're spot on here. Of course Albert Johnston was complicit in the forging of the watch, but as you say his bottle went when that very large sum of money was offered for the watch. I believe, like you, that Robbie Johnston was the driving force behind the scam.

[erobitha]

I believe you're spot on here. Of course Albert Johnston was complicit in the forging of the watch, but as you say his bottle went when that very large sum of money was offered for the watch. I believe, like you, that Robbie Johnston was the driving force behind the scam.

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.

The watch for me remains the best physical evidence that points the finger firmly at Maybrick, and the fact people are letting "timing" influence their objective reaosning I find fascinating. There is a possible scenario where the document, the watch and a bag incscribed "J.M JACK" were all found together in Battlecrease House and all sold sperately locally to "get rid" by workmen worried about getting caught "stealing". Perhaps that could account for the "convenient timing" of the watch. Easier to call it forgery and hope you are right than be open to the prospect of this being the truth.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Though many would argue that the reason it couldn't have been in two places at once is because it didn't exist until around 1992...

[Fantomas]

The diary notwithstanding, there are other reasons to dismiss Maybrick’s candidacy as JTR. In a previous post (found under “General Suspect Discussion")

And how did Maybrick get JTR’s apparent strong working knowledge of human anatomy? How could he have such high comfort level performing mutilations/organ removals on the unfamiliar streets of the East End? The level of comfort and familiarity displayed by JTR, both in the Whitechapel setting, and in the area of anatomy, does not match our knowledge of Maybrick and his life.

This is why Tumblety - for whatever other paradoxes in logic his candidacy takes - remains strong but so, too, does a medical/surgical and/or ritual killer (Occult/Muti)

[erobitha]

This is why Tumblety - for whatever other paradoxes in logic his candidacy takes - remains strong but so, too, does a medical/surgical and/or ritual killer (Occult/Muti)

There is no evidence the murderer had expert anatomical knowledge outside of a basic rudementary understanding of where the organs resided. There was plenty of human antomany museums around at the time, plus a heightened inetrest generally for the advancement of understanding human biology with many books and periodicals - not mention live surgeries. It is not beyond the realms of possibility the killer just had a basic understanding of anatomy. The knife he used certainly was not the most optimal for extracting the organs or the 'samples' he took. I will agree that the killings bear hallmarks of ritualistic elements and it's symbolism to masonry is quite compelling.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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!

[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.

[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

[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