What if the watch is real but the document isn't?

[Graham]

And where and when was this infamous confrontation between Robbie Johnson and Anne Graham? And he lied to Paul Feldman? What lies did he tell him? Where did Paul Feldman record these 'lies'? You tell me what he meant by "all this", please, because I haven't a clue. Can you be a little more specific if possible? I asked you a fairly direct question, so a fairly direct rather than a mysterious response would be appreciated.

Discuss the Diary again?? But you and others on these boards have never discussed the Diary - you have just stated your opinions and totally refused to accept some of those held by others who do not necessarily agree with your opinions. That, my friend, is not a 'discussion' as I understand the meaning of the word.

And regarding Mike Barrett. That piece you showed in a recent post. Can you please tell us how you know it was written by Mike, word for word, punctuation for punctuation? I do have some slight experience of writing articles (for technical publications, as it goes) and as I am not a professional journalist in the accepted sense of the expression as I understand it, my articles were invariably 'improved' by the full-time journalists employed by those publications. I didn't mind. And I don't think Mike even was a journalist in any sense of the word - rather, he liked to interview 'celebrities' and then base his articles around those interviews. And once he'd got his famous word-processor, how do you know that it was Mike who wrote up his notes into an acceptable article, and not the far more literary Anne? Was he an acceptable typist? I repeat - my understanding of Mike is that he wasn't completely illiterate, but his literacy was of a low level.

Graham

[Abby Normal]

And where and when was this infamous confrontation between Robbie Johnson and Anne Graham? And he lied to Paul Feldman? What lies did he tell him? Where did Paul Feldman record these 'lies'? You tell me what he meant by "all this", please, because I haven't a clue. Can you be a little more specific if possible? I asked you a fairly direct question, so a fairly direct rather than a mysterious response would be appreciated.

Discuss the Diary again?? But you and others on these boards have never discussed the Diary - you have just stated your opinions and totally refused to accept some of those held by others who do not necessarily agree with your opinions. That, my friend, is not a 'discussion' as I understand the meaning of the word.

And regarding Mike Barrett. That piece you showed in a recent post. Can you please tell us how you know it was written by Mike, word for word, punctuation for punctuation? I do have some slight experience of writing articles (for technical publications, as it goes) and as I am not a professional journalist in the accepted sense of the expression as I understand it, my articles were invariably 'improved' by the full-time journalists employed by those publications. I didn't mind. And I don't think Mike even was a journalist in any sense of the word - rather, he liked to interview 'celebrities' and then base his articles around those interviews. And once he'd got his famous word-processor, how do you know that it was Mike who wrote up his notes into an acceptable article, and not the far more literary Anne? Was he an acceptable typist? I repeat - my understanding of Mike is that he wasn't completely illiterate, but his literacy was of a low level.

Graham

and this is the problem with this the diary defenders. when its proven he was a published author-now its questioned that he didnt write the articles either?!? it never ends.
And besides-if she helped him write the articles then why couldnt she have helped him write the diary? good grief

[Graham]

[QUOTE=rjpalmer;n733843]

There is no such thing as a world-renowned expert in dating scratches in metal. Such a creature is mythical. Those who actually undertook the analysis admitted it couldn't be done, that more work was needed, and all they could basically do was to describe the order in which the scratches were made---in other words, 'chronology' in relationship to other scratches, but no actual date of origin for any of the scratches.

Well, I'd rather listen to Dr Robert Wild's opinion than yours, based on your respective knowledge of electron microscopy.

The question of this infamous microscopic brass particle found one scratch is a tedious one, and I don't care to revisit it--not because it is an "inconvenient truth," but because it is utterly inconclusive. It could have been nothing more than a flake off the engraving tool used to make the scratches circa 1993, and was already corroded. It could have been contamination from a cleaning rag (as suggested by Melvin Harris). What you are assuming is that this microscopic particle aged 'in situ' over many decades, which is not a 'fact,' let alone an 'inconvenient' fact. Regardless of how it got there, brass can easily be 'darkened' by any number of different solutions, including common vinegar. The particle could have been accidently darkened by someone cleaning the watch with some solvent, and we know the watch had been recently cleaned. It does in no way prove the scratches were 'decades old.'

The scratches were either modern or not. The consensus amongst the scientific community is/was that they are almost certainly old.

Why do you think Robbie Johnson lied to Paul Feldman? When Robbie confronted Anne Graham in front of witnesses, what did he mean by saying "Anne, you need throwing out the window. Jesus, I can't believe all this. You mean that we're going to get a few bob after all this?"

What did he mean by "all this"? What exactly had Robbie Johnson done to deserve a pay day? And why is his overriding concern about what they are "going to get" out of it? In all honesty, none of this raises a red flag??

I guess you're referring to Page 124 of 'Ripper Diary'. I still don't see where you get the idea that Robbie lied to Feldman. He was about the only one who actually made an money out of the watch, when he sold his share in it. If there was a coolness between anyone at that meeting, it was between Robbie and Anne.

[Graham]

[QUOTE=Graham;n733889]

Well, I'd rather listen to Dr Robert Wild's opinion than yours, based on your respective knowledge of electron microscopy.



The scratches were either modern or not. The consensus amongst the scientific community is/was that they are almost certainly old.



I guess you're referring to Page 124 of 'Ripper Diary'. I still don't see where you get the idea that Robbie lied to Feldman. He was about the only one who actually made an money out of the watch, when he sold his share in it. If there was a coolness between anyone at that meeting, it was between Robbie and Anne.

[rjpalmer]

And besides-if she helped him write the articles then why couldnt she have helped him write the diary? good grief

Exactamundo, Abby.

The evidence we have of Barrett’s pre-1995 literacy is every bit as worthy of a courtroom as the evidence we have of the diary coming from Battlecrease (oh dear, maybe more so?): we have a receipt of Barrett buying an Amstrad word processor--not the usual purchase item of an illiterate; we have Shirley Harrison’s testimony that Barrett belonging to a “writer’s circle” in the late 1980s and early 1990s; we have a series of articles (mainly interviews, yes), printed in national publications with Barrett’s name attached. Of course, Anne Graham may have helped Mike “tidy these up,” but we don’t really know that, now do we? And ultimately, what difference does it make? In other words, what is Graham's actual point? Why should I give a toss if Paul McCartney wrote 10% of “Love Me Do,” and John Lennon wrote the other 90%, or whether it was the other way around, or whether it was a prefect 50/50 collaboration? Barrett and Graham were married. They lived together in the 1980s when those articles/interviews were published. They still lived together in 1992-93 when the Diary came forward. Your shout of "good grief" shows admirable brevity.

[rjpalmer]

I still don't see where you get the idea that Robbie lied to Feldman.

Hi Graham.

Feldman’s discussion of Robbie Johnson lying to him about the watch’s scratches can be found in Feldman’s book The Final Chapter, but I’m afraid you’ll have to look it up for yourself. Feldman’s paperback had one of those gum bindings and the pages started to fall out, so I ended up tossing it into a skip with more force and emphasis than an electrician tossing a priceless artifact from an upstairs window.

The incident happened during one of the examinations of the watch by either Turgoose or Wild, where, inexplicably, the omnipresent Robbie was in the shadows, claiming ignorance while on the phone to Feldman, even though he had previously provided a detailed sketch of the exact scratches. Feldman was candid enough to admit that he had caught Robby in an out-and-out lie, but instead of suspecting him of complicity, invented some bizarre theory of two watches, with the Johnsons being secretly related to Maybrick, etc. etc. Crazy, paranoid ramblings.

Keep your spirits up during the quarantine, I'll be off now.

Cheers, RP.

[Graham]

RJ,

the point I'm trying to make re: the belief that Mike wrote the Diary is this: I do not believe he was capable. End of story as far as I'm concerned. And as far as I am aware Anne never actually owned up, if that's the correct phrase, to making any contribution to the Diary if it was indeed conceived by her husband. She, rather, came along with a story of its being passed down to her from her father. Unlikely, but not impossible. But I don't recall her ever publicly retracting this claim.

Re: Robbie telling porkies. I haven't read Feldman's book for a long time, partly because of the reason you mention: it's falling apart. However, I will now (very carefully) check it out and refresh my memory. The thing that concerns me is, if Robbie really did produce the markings on the watch, when did he do it? According to Albert, Robbie had no access to the watch for a long time.

Yes, I think I'll take a break from the world of real and possibly fictional crime, and concentrate on getting myself and my missus through this COVID-19 lark.

Best of luck to one and all, and stay safe.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Yes, I think I'll take a break from the world of real and possibly fictional crime, and concentrate on getting myself and my missus through this COVID-19 lark.

Keep your spirits up during the quarantine, I'll be off now.

Cheers, RP.

Somehow I doubt it, gentlemen.

Graham, until Villa Park is free of the coronavirus, you'll keep coming back here; and RJ, until you are free of bongobarrettvirus, you'll not be able to resist coming back to cough and splutter all over us. Fortunately, we have a national leader with a functioning brain (despite how it sometimes looks) so we will be wearing masks against the terrible disease BBVID-92 causes, but not all will be safe. Those infected show the following symptoms:

• Belief that a Liverpool scally with unrealistic pretensions to literacy wrote the astonishing work that is the Maybrick scrapbook;
• Belief that one can ignore the insights of metallurgy 'experts' (I would accept your point that this point is moot but I also am comfortable with the notion that their views would be at the very least more insightful than yours or mine on this subject) and argue away the available evidence with truly asinine arguments such as "You could rub it with a dirty cloth and, of course, some element of 'aged brass' will tumble out and embed itself into one of the earlier scratches" and similar such special pleadings;
• Failing to note that the same special pleadings were not simultaneously offered by the metallurgy 'experts' whose reservations - if these special pleadings were valid - one might have imagined rapidly lurching out of the pen so that their observations could not be misunderstood by those like me who might be considered to have a vested interest in accepting what they said without resorting to making-up that which they failed to say.

The BBVID-19 disease has other implications which I am happy to touch upon (metaphorically, obviously - I will be 2m away at all times). The symptoms are wide-ranging, but they all carry the self-same DNA - the twisted double helix of it's-a-hoax-and-Bongo-did-it which replicate rapidly once they break through the cellular barrier of the victim's brain and ultimately cause them to post their nonsense on sites like this.

Ike

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The first symptoms are a new and persistent belief in the Maybrick Diary, lasting longer than two weeks, and a highly fevered approach to promoting those beliefs.
Unfortunately, no cure has yet been found, despite the best efforts of some eminent specialists, namely Dr Orsam.

[Iconoclast]

The first symptoms are a new and persistent belief in the Maybrick Diary, lasting longer than two weeks, and a highly fevered approach to promoting those beliefs.
Unfortunately, no cure has yet been found, despite the best efforts of some eminent specialists, namely Dr Orsam.

AB'sE, If only we could persuade Admin to allow retired medics to come out of retirement whilst we fight this dreadful virus.

PS Typo in last paragraph - obviously my second reference to BBVID-92 was mistyped. Can't think what I may have had on my mind at the time ...

[Graham]

Ike, you're right. I just signed in to see what's happening. And the way the Villa were playing I rather think they'd already got the bloody virus at the start of the season.

Must go and finish sellotaping my copy of Feldman back together.

Graham

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike - as long as bongobarrettitis is running rampant, forcing me into quarantine, I can’t promise that I won’t re-infect your arguments, though I try to be a good citizen by not coughing in your direction.

Who is disputing Turgoose and Wild? Not I. I fully agree with their conclusions!! Scratches in metal can’t be dated. My fever doesn’t prevent me from reading English.

The Wild Turgoose Chase team could only give the relative chronology of the scratches…no absolute date. (You know that, old chum, so why are you playing dumb?) They did not say “1888” and they did not say “1993.” They said “A comes before B and B comes before C and C comes before D, thus A came before D.”

If you struggle with this concept, let me help.

Imagine a peanut-butter and jam sandwich. The bottom layer is a slice of bread. On top of this is a layer of peanut-butter. On top of this is a layer of strawberry jam. On top of this is another slice of bread.

Professor Wild-Turgoose Chase, even without an electron microscope, and even without the insights of a Robbie Johnson, tells me that the peanut-butter was applied before the jam, and the top slice of bread was applied after the jam.

He can’t tell me if the jam was made two weeks ago, or if it came from a jar hiding in the back of a certain pantry in Aigburth for the past 131 years. And science has not yet devised an instrument sensitive enough to measure gullibility.

Now imagine Wild-Turgoose also finding a small grain of pre-Cambrian rock in the jam. He can suggest that the fragment is millions and millions of years old, but he can’t tell me if it found its way into the jam last week or whether it was eons before even the fearsome tyrannosaurus rex roamed the earth.

And since the jam cannot be dated, maybe a better question to ask is this: who seems to have had his fingers in the jam jar?

Hope this helps.

Now I'm off to watch some paint dry, or maybe a piece of fruit ripen. Or maybe I'll try to track down that reference to James Maybrick being the part-owner of a brothel that I happened to stumble across a couple of years ago. (Not a joke; it exists, I just can't find it again). Cheerio! Stay safe.

[Sam Flynn]

And science has not yet devised an instrument sensitive enough to measure gullibility.

In Britain, we call such instruments "General Elections"

[c.d.]

Hello Sam,

Where have you been hiding all this time? We have been looking all over for you. Nice to see you back posting again. Hope all is well.

c.d.

[Mike J. G.]

Well, I was, perhaps forlornly, hoping for something of a discussion, but possibly out of the question.

I never suggested that I believed the Diary came from Battlecrease (note the spelling). Whatever it was that Paul Feldman thought had been taken to Liverpool University by some of the workmen, it wasn't the Diary. Feldman never actually discovered what it was, but later came to the conclusion that it wasn't the Diary.

What 'unknown writer' was I supposed to be offering up? I said that there is a slight possibility that Anne had more to do with the Diary's production than she evwer admitted. I also repeated the old tale, which Anne put about, that she found it behind a cupboard and that it had been in her father's possession since 1940. This was never proved, and Anne never went into much more detail.

Barret was a writer?? You what? Ever seen any of his productions? he could hardly sign his name!

And the Watch? You've not given me the benefit of your considered and esteemed opinions regarding this. Don't you have any, then?

Graham

Why're you taking my post so personally Graham? My post was in response to yours, not in retaliation, mate, calm down, lol.

I don't believe anything was taken to any university, I believe that was just another bit of nonsense designed to try and help bolster an already ludicrous story. You don't just ring up a university and tell the receptionist you've found something interesting and ask can you see any random professor who may just happen to be passing the desk if they can book you in for an appointment asap. I strongly doubt that this occurred at all.

Barrett (note the spelling) was a writer, meaning, he wrote, he was paid for doing so. The level of skill in that writing isn't even a matter in this discussion, seeing as the writing in the diary isn't something I'd put on par with Mark bloody Twain, it's clumsy, dramatic and obviously nonsensical.

What would you like to discuss regarding the watch? Frankly, Graham, if you buy any of this rubbish then I've got a bridge to sell you, mate.