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

[The Baron]

Perhaps you should direct that question to someone who believes that the watch and diary were both made by James Maybrick's hand. I only believe the watch is.

We have a progress!!

Good for you, you are one foot back in reality

Those couple of years weren't totally wasted

I asked you about the Manchester Murder because I remember you were busy searching for it quite for some time?!

But now since you no longer believe in the Diary, that fabrication murder is not important any more

Welcome to the world of the living



The Baron

[erobitha]

And how do you know?!

Did you see a man wearing it?


The Baron

Do I need to see a pair of underpants on a man before I can call them men's underpants?

It's a men's watch, specifically for social occasions. It's bigger than a standard ladies' watch and slightly smaller than a standard mens watch. My information is confirmed by someone who has worked with antique watches for over 40 years.

Your source is most likely Stanley Dangar? The same Stanley Dangar who was invited by Melvin Harris from Northern Spain to basically disprove the watch. The same Stanley Dangar who attempted to recreate the scientific results in his own laboratory. The same Stanley Dangar who failed at those attempts. The same Stanley Dangar that fell out with Melvin Harris over a book they were supposed to be co-writing. The same Stanley Dangar then went on to state that he believed that both the diary and watch were genuine. That Stanley Dangar?

[erobitha]

Then why didn't Maybrick the ripper engrave the initial of his first victim in Manchester inside the watch along with the other five?!

The first one is always the most dear one..



The Baron

Perhaps you should direct that question to someone who believes that the watch and diary were both made by James Maybrick's hand. I only believe the watch is.

[The Baron]

And how do you know?!

Did you see a man wearing it?


The Baron

[The Baron]

No. It's a men's watch.

Then why didn't Maybrick the ripper engrave the initial of his first victim in Manchester inside the watch along with the other five?!

The first one is always the most dear one..



The Baron

[erobitha]

I've read that it is too small in size to be a typical men's pocket watch.

Is it possible that Maybrick stole this watch from one of his female victims?! That mysterious woman in Mancheser maybe?!


The Baron

No. It's a men's watch.

[The Baron]

It was a men's pocket watch, used for social gatherings, such as balls and dinners.

I've read that it is too small in size to be a typical men's pocket watch.

Is it possible that Maybrick stole this watch from one of his female victims?! That mysterious woman in Mancheser maybe?!


The Baron

[erobitha]

Was it not a woman's watch Caz?!

I don't know why this Maybrick chooses randomly picked objects for his precious confessions, a woman's watch here, a photo album there, a wall here, an arm there..

It must have been a difficult time for cotton merchants back then


The Baron

It was a men's pocket watch, used for social gatherings, such as balls and dinners.

[The Baron]

I doubt either went in for a ripping time, but I'm intrigued by Baron's claim that Maybrick put his signature on 'some random watches'.

Was it not a woman's watch Caz?!

I don't know why this Maybrick chooses randomly picked objects for his precious confessions, a woman's watch here, a photo album there, a wall here, an arm there..

It must have been a difficult time for cotton merchants back then


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

If that is what I had argued in that post, I would agree - but it wasn't. It was evidently too subtle a point, but never mind.

Perhaps, or it could be that my own comment was too subtle, and you've misunderstood it.

We never get enough detail from Dodd to know exactly what went on. Usually, he is just paraphrased, or we get indirect quotes or snippets. I agree that there are some seeming contradictions in his accounts, but I don't see how any of them help your theory.

Harrison quoted Dodd as telling her that he gutted the place in the 1970s and lifted the floorboards, finding nothing. He also claimed to have done the prep work for the 1992 project---an important detail that is usually ignored, leaving the electricians to have done the work themselves, which I don't think has been proven.

More recently, Dodd admits that some of the floorboards relating to the 1992 job were 'virgin' and had never been lifted. Since these would have predated Maybrick's residency, nothing of interest relating to Maybrick could have been under them. That's what I think he means--they were original and hadn't been tampered with.

From what I understood from Chris Jones, only a small number of boards needed to be lifted for the wiring project in 1992 and these were against the wall.

One can only guess since there's never enough detail in these statements, but it seems logical to me that Dodd could have lifted the floorboards in the 1970s--what he calls 'gutting the place'--for the overhead wiring on the ground floor--but didn't actually remove the floorboards directly adjacent to the wall because this would require also removing the baseboards--an unpleasant job.

Feldman's film shows that Maybrick's old bedroom has baseboards, and these would overlap the edge of the first floorboard next to the wall.

Thus, pending further information, the 'virgin' floorboards could have been entirely limited to the ones he hadn't previously lifted in the 1970s, which would explain why Dodd doesn't believe the diary could have been found in his house.

[caz]

But why then Maybrick the killer just chose to poison those two dogs and didn't cut their throats twice and ripped their innards out?!

Was that not exactly his dear modus operandi ?!

Or he just likes to put his signature on some random watches instead ?!


The Baron

If Maybrick really did poison man's best friend, it puts him way down the food chain with George Chapman, who poisoned some men's worst enemies: women.

I doubt either went in for a ripping time, but I'm intrigued by Baron's claim that Maybrick put his signature on 'some random watches'.

I must say, the quality of argument in my absence is - noteworthy.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I missed this post the first go round.

Only in the Maybrick 'debate' is it possible to describe 'virgin' floorboards as ones that have never been lifted and yet at the same time were previously lifted and then nailed down again.

If that is what I had argued in that post, I would agree - but it wasn't. It was evidently too subtle a point, but never mind.

[The Baron]

From the Maybrick A to Z:

Tinne, Earnest ... allegedly had two of his dogs poisoned by James Maybrick because their barking annoyed him...

But why then Maybrick the killer just chose to poison those two dogs and didn't cut their throats twice and ripped their innards out?!

Was that not exactly his dear modus operandi ?!

Or he just likes to put his signature on some random watches instead ?!


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

The problem is that if Chris Jones put this in his book, Paul Dodd himself has said more recently that there were some 'virgin' floorboards [meaning original boards that had never been lifted] when the electricians did their work. He pointed out - rather needlessly - that these boards could not have had anything hidden beneath them.

This not only completely contradicts any previous claim that Dodd had personally lifted every board in the place at some point, but it also allows for other boards which Dodd had never lifted, but which could have been raised and nailed down again at any previous point, by a workman or occupant.

I missed this post the first go round.

Only in the Maybrick 'debate' is it possible to describe 'virgin' floorboards as ones that have never been lifted and yet at the same time were previously lifted and then nailed down again.

[caz]

Morning Mike,

I don't know who Chris Jones has in mind, but what I also find curious is why some people seem to need Anne to have had her own inky fingers all over the diary, and her imagination all over the words. It's not as if the only alternative to a Barrett hoax would be a genuine James Maybrick artefact, but you'd be forgiven for thinking that's what some fear. It's simply not true that those of us who can't reconcile the known facts with a Barrett creation must all secretly believe that Maybrick wrote the damned thing or was Jack the Ripper.

It's narrow thinking in my view. What better place would there have been for an anonymous hoaxer, seeking neither fame nor fortune, to have had their Battlecrease diary emerge from than - er - wait - it'll come to me - Battlecrease!

There, I've done it now. I've said a bad word. I'd better not walk under any ladders later when out shopping. I've only got eight lives left.

Love,

Caz
X