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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[rjpalmer]

The scientific analysis, by world-renknowned experts in this field.

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.

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.'

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 do hope social distancing ends soon. This quarantine is making me so stir crazy I'm actually starting to discuss the Diary again!

[erobitha]

Thanks for the response, Hans.

The watch? I am not as impressed by the forensic analysis as you are. I am more impressed that Paul Feldman admitted in print that Robbie Johnson had lied to him about the markings, pretending ignorance, even though he had previously made a detailed and accurate sketch of them.

And no, I don't buy the claim that someone would need an electron microscope and great technical skill to create this mess of scratches on the inside cover of watch. Happy dreams.

The scientific analysis, by world-renknowned experts in this field, all claimed the aged brass particles at the base of the engravings could not be faked without advanced technical knowledge and the markings were at LEAST decades old - in 1993 - long before the diary was discovered.

The watch remains an incnovenient truth, dismissed because of timing and not science. The irony.

[Graham]

And thank you for your response, Lionel.

Would you be kind enough to point out to me where, in his book or elsewhere, Feldman made this reference about Robbie Johnson? Are you in fact suggesting that Robbie Johnson admitted to making the markings himself?

You are free to accept, discard or simply ignore the forensic investigation of the Watch. Up to you. And the same applies to me and everyone else.

Graham (not Hans)

[rjpalmer]

Thanks for the response, Hans.

The watch? I am not as impressed by the forensic analysis as you are. I am more impressed that Paul Feldman admitted in print that Robbie Johnson had lied to him about the markings, pretending ignorance, even though he had previously made a detailed and accurate sketch of them.

And no, I don't buy the claim that someone would need an electron microscope and great technical skill to create this mess of scratches on the inside cover of watch. Happy dreams.

[Graham]

RJ, listen. I do not, never did, and never will believe that Michael John Barrett wrote the Diary. He had not the wit. If he was personally responsible for 100% of that article you show in your post, then call be Hans, 'cos I'll be a Dutchman. No way. At best, he may have had something of an input, but if the Diary originated in 12 Goldie Street, then it wasn't Mike who produced it. If he did, then why did he not pursue a lucrative and glamorous career in journalism? Mike apparently always wanted to be a writer, and told as much to anyone who would listen, but he never made it, did he? Too pissed? Too crap?

The fact remains that, unless Anne ever cares to speak up (and who would believe her even if she did, given the degree of universal cynicism on these boards) we shall never know.

I find it significant and somewhat illuminating that the two responses so far to my post have failed to mention the Watch, which is actually also the subject of this thread. The Watch seems not to attract the same degree of pulpit-hammering as the Diary, possibly because the forensic analysis is much more difficult to shoot down, and almost certainly because it is beyond the grasp of mere mortals such as we.

So.....about the Watch, gentlemen?

Graham

[rjpalmer]

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

Hi Graham. Too bad you weren't there to alert the editor of Celebrity Magazine to this remarkable 'fact.' Maybe he wouldn't have been so eager to publish Barrett's articles if he had known that Mike was completely illiterate.




So, out of curiosity, how do you explain the "disconnect" between the professionally published articles by Michael Barrett that appeared in the mid and late 1980s, and the scribbled notes from the mid-1990s, also by Mike, as published by Skinner, Morris, and Linder?

Stroke? Alcoholic haze? Deliberate subterfuge? Or was Anne helping Mike "tidy things up" all along?

I confess that, on one occasion, I found an old note of my own, written after a night down at the local watering hole, that bore little resemblance to anything I would have written when sober.

Deny it until the cows come home, but Barrett publishing articles in the 1980s is an objective fact. It is as true as the sun appearing in the east every morning.

Stay safe,

RP