Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Book: The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    In other words, if the watch is old, the diary must be too. Sounds quite a bit like what Chris Jones said in reverse.

    Will we be hearing about 'Mantra Morris' and her 'ridiculous' logic? Or are we seeing a case of what is not good for the gander is perfectly good for the goose? ​

    Clearly, logic dictates that the arguments for the diary being a modern fake are equally debilitating to the watch unless one wants to indulge in 'convoluted and contrived' speculations.

    Enough said.
    Thinking about this a bit more, I'm left wondering how convoluted and contrived RJ or Chris Jones would have allowed their speculations to become, to keep the diary as a 1992 Barrett hoax in the event that the watch engravings had proved to be much older than that, beyond reasonable doubt.

    If those engravings really do date back decades, it doesn't follow that the diary would be any likelier to be in James Maybrick's handwriting.

    The diary does not appear to have been written in any known person's heavily disguised hand. That should effectively have ruled out both Barretts along with James Maybrick, but instead we get convoluted and contrived speculations to explain how one of these three people [depending on the colour of one's scarf] might still have held the pen - or, in the Barretts' case, might even have persuaded the Invisible Man to do their dirty work for them, while young Caroline looked on.

    If the writing was not done by James Maybrick or a Barrett, would it not be reasonable to speculate that whoever else held the pen, at whatever time, either transferred the words into the scrapbook from their own original script - since lost or destroyed - or simply copied or adapted someone else's work? We have a perfect example, with the Crashaw quote, of someone using someone else's words - imperfectly - in the scrapbook. At school we had to choose a favourite poem, learn it by heart and then recite it to the class. I picked The Charge of the Light Brigade. I don't think I fluffed any lines, but nobody would have assumed it was all my own work!

    This concept is not a new one. We are asked to believe that there was a typescript sitting on Mike Barrett's word processor, which was either transferred by hand into the scrapbook, in early April 1992, by the same person who composed the words [which is where the heavy disguise speculation comes in and tends to fall down], or copied out by a very accommodating third party with inky fingers, who might reasonably have wondered what the hell the story was. I don't believe such a typescript ever existed, but it would not have survived, and would almost certainly have been deleted before Scotland Yard could have found it.

    If the diary is meant to have begun life in another form, in Goldie Street in the early 90s, why could it not have begun life in another form, but in another place and time? If the watch is considered to be a kind of companion piece, it was destined to be disappointed by a diary in the wrong handwriting.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    I'm not sure what RJ's problem is here. Clearly, if the Maybrick signature was already in the watch by the time the Murphys put it in the shop window in the Spring of 1992, it would seriously call into question the notion that the diary was not physically created until early April 1992, from a secretly prepared typescript sitting on the Barretts' word processor.

    There is no evidence to suggest the Barretts knew the Murphys or the Johnsons in 1992, so it would really be in RJ's interests to read and address the points I raised in my post to Al on 17th November, regarding the watch.

    Is RJ able to support his belief that the watch was hoaxed by a Johnson brother between April and June 1993? I'm not expecting evidence; just his explanation of how he'd have gone about it himself in order to end up with the same or a similar result.

    Since his Barrett hoax theory depends on having a feasible solution to the watch conundrum, this should not be too taxing for him.

    However, I won't hold my breath.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Jay Hartley writes, with considerable sarcasm:

    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    Chris has this ridiculous mantra "if the diary is a fake then so is the watch!" Wow, that's logic right there.
    Speaking of the archives, here's a blast from the past:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	CAM 2001.jpg
Views:	295
Size:	54.9 KB
ID:	800364

    In other words, if the watch is old, the diary must be too. Sounds quite a bit like what Chris Jones said in reverse.

    Will we be hearing about 'Mantra Morris' and her 'ridiculous' logic? Or are we seeing a case of what is not good for the gander is perfectly good for the goose? ​

    Clearly, logic dictates that the arguments for the diary being a modern fake are equally debilitating to the watch unless one wants to indulge in 'convoluted and contrived' speculations.

    Enough said.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    While I'm here, I had a brief look for old casebook posts but came up empty. If anyone has any ideas, I'm looking for posts going back to before March 2001.

    I used to print out many posts when I first arrived back in late 1998, but house moves meant it was impractical to keep the vast majority, so I just kept a few, from February to August, 2001.

    By 1st March that year, RJ Palmer was already posting about 'the hoax', and whether or not Melvin Harris should have been obliged to name his still living suspects.

    So the post of RJ's, which I was unable to find and quote, but was one of the first he wrote when he made his debut here, must have been in the more dim and distant past than I thought.

    While taking a quick look at the surviving posts in my lever arch file, I did come across one by the much missed Martin Fido, also from 1st March 2001, who was replying to a query of mine, asking about the 1858 Turnbull edition of Crashaw's works, and whether the word death's [sic] was a mistranscription of deaths [plural].

    Interestingly, Martin thought death's 'would almost certainly be a mistranscription, or possibly a silent emendation by an editor who found the line difficult to understand'. Martin went on to note that 'in general those admirable Victorian amateurs were not always the best of scholars'.

    I am again reminded of the argument that the diary was composed by someone who couldn't aspire to the real Maybrick's level of scholarship, as a cotton merchant who went straight into the work force without going on to higher education.

    I always thought that the diary author knew the 'look' they were going for, and not being the 'best of scholars' was just one of Sir Jim's many flaws, and an exceedingly minor one!

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 11-17-2022, 01:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Hi Al,

    Whether or not that would allude to it being 'genuine' has to be down to personal opinion.

    What I guess I am asking is how, if I am expected to take it for granted that one of the Johnson brothers did fake the inscriptions in the watch, did they manage to make the Maybrick signature 'uncannily accurate'?

    Nobody seems to have a clue, or they prefer not to dwell on such technicalities, but to take the holistic approach.

    If the diary is a modern Barrett fake, then it doesn't concern them how the signature in the watch was accomplished; it just was, and the only suspects are the Johnsons.

    But it's a circular argument, and here's another one: if the signature was already there in the watch when Albert bought it, it calls into question the popular doctrine about the Barretts as literary hoaxers.

    I can see why so few of us are willing to even go there, but it would be refreshing to see someone giving their honest opinion on that signature, and how well they would have got on if they had given themselves a similar task, using an aged engraving implement on gold, over a couple of months in the early 1990s, before they could have Googled 'no tool like an old tool'.

    Robbie Johnson dealt in cannabis and did time for it.

    But how would he have set about scratching JM's signature in his own time and on Albert's watch, between April and May 1993?

    And why a signature? Surely - surely - most amateur fakers, with only one go at it, would have scratched a far simpler JM [just like the other sets of initials] or, if they felt more confident and adventurous, the individual letters spelling out M A Y B R I C K.

    I know my better half's signature would be virtually impossible for anyone else to decipher, let alone mimic, even using pen on paper and a genuine example to copy from.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Where in my post did I say that, Al?


    Love,

    Caz
    X
    You didn't, that's why I was asking. I was just curious, and as your post indicates, if the Johnson's didn't fake the inscription, but the signature is uncannily accurate, that alludes to it being genuine. If not, it falls into the 'old hoax' pigeon hole leaving us none the wiser as to who did it, when or why. Or how it came to be in a shop in the latter part of the 20th century.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    It is indeed painful to contemplate such absurdities.
    Take a couple of aspirin and get over yourself.

    The world has gone mad. Once the arguments have traveled this far down the rabbit hole, it's time to call it a day.
    But you won't call it a day, will you?

    The world has always been mad and it's not getting any saner. It's called the human condition. Yet you choose to come here to see it in action, like a moth to a flame.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Oh dear, this truly takes the cake.
    Oh good, could you make it a Victorian sponge? With a generous filling of strawberry jam and vanilla buttercream? Ta.

    Caz alludes to a non-existent post from twenty years ago that she is clearly misremembering or misrepresenting, and now acknowledges that--if it ever existed--it is "lost in the mists of time," so I must take simply take her word for it.

    While in almost the same breath she demands that she be directly quoted.
    No 'demands', RJ. I offered not to bang on any more about that one early post of yours, if you would agree not to put your own words in my mouth in future when there are posts of mine available in the here and now for you to quote from instead. I thought that was pretty reasonable, but evidently you would prefer to carry on regardless, misremembering or misrepresenting my words, while I am still supposed to search out that one post of yours which I didn't quote directly, or keep my trap shut.

    What I think she is probably misremembering is a statement made by Trevor Marriott in fairly recent memory that Barrett's sworn affidavit would be considered evidence in a court of law, and that is all he (Trevor) had to say on the matter.
    Ha ha, now that's really funny. If I ever confuse any of Trevor's statements, ancient or modern, with one of your own, you really need to panic. Your post was not in 'fairly recent memory' - it was from the dim and distant past, which is why I didn't think I'd be able to quote it directly. If I do ever find the one I'm thinking of, I'll do the decent thing and quote it directly.

    7 or 8 ridiculous books about the Maybrick Hoax have appeared in print, and now someone whom the diary friendly have previously expressed respect for has published 1 book daring to take the opposing view.

    And they are in a bitter panic.
    Who's in a 'bitter panic'? I don't even know what that feels like, so you'll have to describe it for me. It sounds rather unpleasant so you have my sympathy.

    Assuming you refer to the recent book by Chris Jones, I can't think what you mean. Did he finally nail the diary as a Barrett hoax, where you and everyone else had failed? If so, I must be missing the smoking gun, which you had to wait for so many bitter years for Chris to produce.

    Did you decipher some cryptic message in the book, as proof of Anne Graham's active involvement in creating the diary? As she had generously agreed to meet Chris and talk about their mutual interest in the Maybrick case, and he's a nice chap, it would have been natural enough to keep it subtle.

    But if all Chris does in his book is to take 'an opposing view', I think we can all cope with that without reaching for the smelling salts.
    Last edited by caz; 11-10-2022, 03:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    Hi Caz,

    So are you saying the watch is genuine?
    Where in my post did I say that, Al?

    I do think whoever engraved Maybrick's signature in the watch was familiar with how he signed his name.

    Make of that what you will. But how would you have set about engraving anyone's signature in metal, before the internet age, without any examples to guide you?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    In case anyone wondered: The Liverpool City Region explained. Wirral officially became part of Liverpool's "political conurbation" in 2014.



    Click image for larger version  Name:	Liverpool City Region.jpg Views:	0 Size:	94.2 KB ID:	799741

    Also, from The Echo, in a recent article about Covid-19.


    Click image for larger version  Name:	Liverpool City Region 2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	35.9 KB ID:	799742


    Similarly, it is by no means unusual for people to refer to Staten Island as part of New York City, even though it is separated by water and is closer to New Jersey, because Staten Island is one of the 5 boroughs of NYC, just as Wirral is one of the six boroughs that make up Liverpool.

    I only post this because Chris Jones has been taken to task several times for off-handedly referring to Wirral as part of Liverpool.
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 11-08-2022, 01:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    However painful it might be for some of the diehards, the handwriting issue does leave open the possibility of some original document, since destroyed or hidden away who knows where, which was found at some point - with or without the watch - by someone who then had the idea to transfer, adapt or embellish its contents by hand into the scrapbook.
    Thank you for posting this, Caroline. As you know, I think it's possible this is what happened. Except the resultant rewrite got into Mike's hands and he set a deadline of a little over a month to deliver it. Then he had second thoughts of turning it over and wanted to try his own hand at writing a version of the diary. With the deadline looming, he gave up (like attempting to purchase the small red diary) and gave Doreen what he originally had.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    It is indeed painful to contemplate such absurdities......

    Or that in every case of literary forgery, there might not have been a genuine document--now lost or destroyed--that inspired it?
    Hi RJ,

    As sad as it seems, yeah, that's what I think happened with the Maybrick Diary.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    I think we've come to the end of the yellow brick road.

    Originally posted by caz View Post
    However painful it might be for some of the diehards, the handwriting issue does leave open the possibility of some original document, since destroyed or hidden away who knows where, which was found at some point - with or without the watch - by someone who then had the idea to transfer, adapt or embellish its contents by hand into the scrapbook.
    It is indeed painful to contemplate such absurdities.

    By the same token, should we not leave open the possibility that the remains of an unknown hominid were indeed discovered at Piltdown, but someone then had the idea to substitute these remains with a modern human skull and the jawbone of an orangutan?

    Or that in every case of literary forgery, there might not have been a genuine document--now lost or destroyed--that inspired it?

    Why even bother examining the authenticity of documents? For even if they are proven fakes, they could be based on genuine records, now lost. The appalling hoax, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, could, for instance, be based on actual rabbinical documents now lost to us, and should thus not be dismissed out-of-hand.

    For everyone knows, that when someone finds an old document or artifact, their first impulse is to immediately render it utterly worthless by bringing forward a clumsy imitation of it.

    The world has gone mad. Once the arguments have traveled this far down the rabbit hole, it's time to call it a day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Well yes, that was how Albert and his workmates [with no evidence of Robbie's input] were able to decipher what the scratches were about, when they were first spotted. How else would they have interpreted the 'I am Jack' and the various sets of initials?

    But how much had appeared in the newspapers about the diary itself? What could an opportunist hoaxer have understood about the unpublished contents, for instance the number of victims, which ones featured and how the author referred to them, if at all? What if 'Sir Jim' excluded Liz Stride, or included Tabram, or referred to Nichols by name as Polly, not Mary?

    That's just off the top of my head, but there is also a total lack of evidence that Robbie even knew his brother had bought a gold watch the year before [actually on 14th July 1992, around the time Mike Barrett had secured a publisher for the diary, and just three days before Eddie Lyons was telling Brian Rawes outside Battlecrease that he had found something in the house - no time frame suggested - that could be "important"].

    Albert said Robbie didn't know he had the watch until Albert showed him the scratches in it, so Albert, predictably, has to be accused of being simple or another liar. There is also no evidence that Robbie had read a word about the diary, before supposedly coming up with this impetuous and 'deeply suspicious' plan to create a second Maybrick artefact on the back of a first, which had yet to be smell tested by the general public. He decided to deface his brother's timepiece [shame about the ornate JO but nobody's perfect] and then guessed how the real James Maybrick, who was a nobody before his death made him a minor celebrity victim, used to sign his name in the late 1880s and, more to the point, he had to guess how he didn't sign it, not knowing if examples might survive in some dusty records office. He could have just scratched the name MAYBRICK - he only had one go at it - or even simpler the initials JM - like that other silly faker, a besotted Sarah Robertson, writing her own bible inscription to impress all the posh friends she would have liked to have, if James had not kept her locked away from his own social whirl, a grubby guilty secret, like Mrs Palm and her five lovely daughters.

    I digress.

    Anyway, using his newly acquired set of aged brass implements, one for each "canical" victim, Robbie then set about his task, finally looking over all he had made and seeing it was good. He didn't know then just how good. If he later saw JM's signature, he'd have believed in guardian angels. But he'd have considered himself to be The Lord God Almighty when he realised he had unwittingly echoed Jim's personal motto, by literally making 'time' reveal all, when there was no earthly reason to think there was even a motto to echo. I mean, how many unimpressive businessmen gave themselves a motto? We can ignore - should ignore - the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose recent letter of resignation was handwritten and dated 'St Crispin's Day'. FFS.

    Moving on...

    Robbie's last task in the early summer of 1993 would have been to engineer a situation whereby his brother would take his timepiece into work and with any luck the 'discovery' would be made, not by Albert himself, but by a workmate who would then help to decipher the scratch marks. Perhaps Robbie whispered in his sleeping brother's ear one night, when Val was visiting the lavatory, to implant the suggestion as if in a dream, and the charm was wound up in that way.

    And all this went without a hitch from a late April newspaper story to planning stage to execution to discovery to Robert Smith's office in London in early June.

    Sadly, Robbie looked the wrong way one day when crossing that busy road in Spain and got called to meet his Maker to explain how luck can change in an instant.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hi Caz,

    So are you saying the watch is genuine?

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    As RJ is well aware, his earliest posts, including the offending one in question, will have been lost in the mists of time.
    Oh dear, this truly takes the cake.

    Caz alludes to a non-existent post from twenty years ago that she is clearly misremembering or misrepresenting, and now acknowledges that--if it ever existed--it is "lost in the mists of time," so I must take simply take her word for it.

    While in almost the same breath she demands that she be directly quoted.

    What I think she is probably misremembering is a statement made by Trevor Marriott in fairly recent memory that Barrett's sworn affidavit would be considered evidence in a court of law, and that is all he (Trevor) had to say on the matter.

    And one can readily find nearly all of the old archives if one knows how to do it, and more are available on CD ROM.

    Perhaps I'll make the time to delve into them and post a few direct quotes from someone calling herself Caroline Morris, though I imagine I will be immediately scolded for bringing up ancient history--another one of Caz's frequent complaints. She is nothing if not inconsistent.

    And one wonders why the world at large gives the diary crowd a wide berth.

    I find the current mood interesting.

    7 or 8 ridiculous books about the Maybrick Hoax have appeared in print, and now someone whom the diary friendly have previously expressed respect for has published 1 book daring to take the opposing view.

    And they are in a bitter panic.

    And by the way, Caz is incorrect.

    The earliest posts on this site are still available. It was a swath of post made some years later that were wiped-out during a crash. I think it was around 2003 or so, but I go by memory.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X