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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[The Baron]

And how do you know?!

Did you see a man wearing it?


The Baron

[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.

[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?

[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

[The Baron]

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

Yes, I guess?!

My information is confirmed by someone who has worked with antique watches for over 40 years.

So it is subjective, and we are supposed to take the word of your unnamed source for this. You also confirm it is smaller than a men's watch.



The Baron

[erobitha]

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

I am interested in people's use of language. You have no idea if I spent an hour or three months looking for Manchester murders, but it suits you to paint a picture that somehow I was poring over newspaper articles night and day. I can assure you that I wasn't. I was simply exploring any potential possibilities that could fit. Which is what everyone should do. Think and research for yourself instead of following what the crowd say. I have conducted much of my own research, much of it new information on the Maybricks, his associates and potential illegitimate children. How much of your own research have you done?

I have a working theory that does not involve James Maybrick writing the diary, but you know what, would I be absolutely stunned and shocked should some evidence emerge that he could have? I don't think I would, but on the balance of the evidence in front of me, I would fall on the side of I do not believe he wrote the diary.

The watch has always been a different kettle of fish altogether. I know the timing worries people, and therefore, that's enough for them to dismiss it. But really, spend time actually reading what the scientific reports actually say, and what it actually means. The engravings were almost certainly decades old in 1993 - minimum. Embedded brass particles in the base of the engravings - embedded. Polished edges of layers signify ageing. Scratches that overlap the "Maybrick" scratches. The K matches a number of examples across a number of years.

These things keep me coming back to the watch. I could not care less if people compare me to a flat earther or "living in the world of the dead". I think for myself. I do my own research.

[erobitha]

Yes, I guess?!





So it is subjective, and we are supposed to take the word of your unnamed source for this. You also confirm it is smaller than a men's watch.



The Baron

You seem to take Stanley Dangar's word. Why should I not take the information of someone who contacted me privately?