The Ripper Diary: Old Hoax Theories

[GUT]

I have a big watch collection and have pocket watches that measure from about 3/4 of an inch across to about 2 1/2 inches [often called a turnip watch].

[caz]

Unless they were trying to be smart & wanted people to believe the watch belonged to Florence, who scratched the initials on herself in an attempt to incriminate her husband.

Amanda

Nope. It is a gentleman's dress pocket watch.

There is a monogram "JO" on the outer case (as Livia explained - see below), and this could not have escaped the notice of whoever decided to use the watch for their scratched ripper 'confession'. I believe this person knew, or discovered there was a John Over in Maybrick's orbit, and had him in mind:

The watch is engraved on the outer case with the
monogram "JO". Some have speculated that these
initials may be those of John Over, 2nd husband of
Emma Parker, the Maybrick's children's nurse
before Alice Yapp. Several members of John Over's
family were watchmakers/watch case makers.

The initials are discussed on a thread over at the
other place called, "Let's discuss the watch", page
3.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello, Caz.

All I know is that in the revised and updated edition (2013, Virgin Media trade paperback) of "The Complete Jack the Ripper", Donald Rumbelow refers on page 254, in the chapter titled "Suspects" to the discovery of a "ladies' watch, an 18-carat gold Lancaster Verity, hallmarked 1846" supposedly once owned by Maybrick.

I guess a canny businessman might buy a lady's watch, if it was cheaper, but having it inscribed "Jack J. Maybrick" (not to mention scratching in the initials of the Ripper's five victims around the edges)-- just seems to me, to be... odd. Conveniently odd...

Hi Pcdunn,

This just goes to show you can't trust even the most reliable ripper authors to be unbiased where the Maybrick saga is concerned. Don is a lovely chap, but he relied on a dodgy source this time and another myth lives on as a result.

It is not a lady's watch. It is a gentleman's dress pocket watch.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi caz,if the dear diary was removed from battlecrease shortly before Mr Barrett announced its arrival to the general public then for him to profit from it he cannot tell the truth because the diary is the legal property of the then owner of battlecrease Mr dodds so he has to invent a story of how it came into his hands .The most logical thing to do would be to use the story that was decided upon when the police came knocking the one about it been in Mrs Barretts wardrobe since she was a little girl and they never brotherd reading it.!!

Ah, but Mike hotly denied that one too, pinky. He was astonished - and livid - when he heard Anne had made such a claim to Feldy. He didn't want anyone to steal his thunder, so he kicked another half decent provenance into touch, in favour of the woeful "I am a master forger", returning subsequently to the equally woeful "I got it from a dead mate".

Love,

Caz
X

[Amanda]

Hello, Caz.

All I know is that in the revised and updated edition (2013, Virgin Media trade paperback) of "The Complete Jack the Ripper", Donald Rumbelow refers on page 254, in the chapter titled "Suspects" to the discovery of a "ladies' watch, an 18-carat gold Lancaster Verity, hallmarked 1846" supposedly once owned by Maybrick.

I guess a canny businessman might buy a lady's watch, if it was cheaper, but having it inscribed "Jack J. Maybrick" (not to mention scratching in the initials of the Ripper's five victims around the edges)-- just seems to me, to be... odd. Conveniently odd...

Unless they were trying to be smart & wanted people to believe the watch belonged to Florence, who scratched the initials on herself in an attempt to incriminate her husband.

Amanda

[Pcdunn]

Which watch, then?

It is a man's watch, PCdunn. A gentleman's dress pocket watch to be exact.

I had a reference book with pages of the things, all similar in size, style and age to the Maybrick watch, and all of them men's watches.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello, Caz.

All I know is that in the revised and updated edition (2013, Virgin Media trade paperback) of "The Complete Jack the Ripper", Donald Rumbelow refers on page 254, in the chapter titled "Suspects" to the discovery of a "ladies' watch, an 18-carat gold Lancaster Verity, hallmarked 1846" supposedly once owned by Maybrick.

I guess a canny businessman might buy a lady's watch, if it was cheaper, but having it inscribed "Jack J. Maybrick" (not to mention scratching in the initials of the Ripper's five victims around the edges)-- just seems to me, to be... odd. Conveniently odd...

[pinkmoon]

There is also the fact that Barrett fancied himself as an author - "Danny The Dolphin Boy" I think was one of his attempts at immortality - and maybe his mates reckoned he was a literary bloke and showed him the Diary which they had abstracted from Battlecrease. This is pure speculation, understand. However he got hold of it, I do give him credit for contacting a literary agent, as this brought a degree of legitimacy to matters.

If anyone has any other theory as to how the Diary came to light, then I would love to hear from them.

As to who wrote the Diary, my own feeling is that we will never know.

Graham

Having met Mr Barrett quite a few times over the years I have formed the opinion that he is not capable of forging anything so we have to rule that out.

[Graham]

There is also the fact that Barrett fancied himself as an author - "Danny The Dolphin Boy" I think was one of his attempts at immortality - and maybe his mates reckoned he was a literary bloke and showed him the Diary which they had abstracted from Battlecrease. This is pure speculation, understand. However he got hold of it, I do give him credit for contacting a literary agent, as this brought a degree of legitimacy to matters.

If anyone has any other theory as to how the Diary came to light, then I would love to hear from them.

As to who wrote the Diary, my own feeling is that we will never know.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

i

Hi Pinkie,

I go along with this! Paul Feldman mentions in his book the two electricians working at Battlecrease who took something to Liverpool University for tests. If I recall correctly, Feldman approached the University for further details, but none were forthcoming. It may have been the Diary, it may have been something else altogether, but untypical of Feldman he didn't pursue it (or if he did, he didn't elaborate).

I've always thought the fact that Barrett was a sometime scrap-metal dealer more than just a coincidence. Scrappies are always interested in what comes out of especially large houses when they're being re-wired, and it is not unlikely that he knew there was such work going on at Battlecrease. If the Diary was discovered at Battlecrease, then precisely how Barrett got hold of it will probably never be known, but I wouldn't mind betting that he got wind of it and that money changed hands. I never really believed the Tony Devereux provenance, which his daughters vehemently denied, or the 'kept behind a cupboard' tale. Reading Feldman's interview with the old and ill Billy Graham also doesn't throw much light on where the Diary might have come from.

The watch, on the other hand, is a different kettle-of-fish altogether....

Graham

Hi Graham,I think there is no doubt that the catalyst for this diary was the work men from battlecrease drinking in Mr Barretts second home maybe the conversation gave an idea for an attempt at forgery or something was handed over we will never know but the only definate connection to Mr Barrett and battlecrease is the workmen.

[Graham]

i

f the dear diary was removed from battlecrease shortly before Mr Barrett announced its arrival to the general public then for him to profit from it he cannot tell the truth because the diary is the legal property of the then owner of battlecrease Mr dodds so he has to invent a story of how it came into his hands .The most logical thing to do would be to use the story that was decided upon when the police came knocking the one about it been in Mrs Barretts wardrobe since she was a little girl and they never brotherd reading it.!!

Hi Pinkie,

I go along with this! Paul Feldman mentions in his book the two electricians working at Battlecrease who took something to Liverpool University for tests. If I recall correctly, Feldman approached the University for further details, but none were forthcoming. It may have been the Diary, it may have been something else altogether, but untypical of Feldman he didn't pursue it (or if he did, he didn't elaborate).

I've always thought the fact that Barrett was a sometime scrap-metal dealer more than just a coincidence. Scrappies are always interested in what comes out of especially large houses when they're being re-wired, and it is not unlikely that he knew there was such work going on at Battlecrease. If the Diary was discovered at Battlecrease, then precisely how Barrett got hold of it will probably never be known, but I wouldn't mind betting that he got wind of it and that money changed hands. I never really believed the Tony Devereux provenance, which his daughters vehemently denied, or the 'kept behind a cupboard' tale. Reading Feldman's interview with the old and ill Billy Graham also doesn't throw much light on where the Diary might have come from.

The watch, on the other hand, is a different kettle-of-fish altogether....

Graham

[MayBea]

That doesn't really make any sense because Mike Barrett (if he was the fence in question?) has always strongly denied the Battlecrease provenance...

I was thinking of Michael's step grandmother, Elizabeth Formby, as the alleged fence, to explain the separation of the two artifacts, whether or not the watch was the one in the estate sale.

The forger/thief, of course, is a different question. He/she could have used any diary with empty pages and any watch, of course.

[pinkmoon]

That doesn't really make any sense because Mike Barrett (if he was the fence in question?) has always strongly denied the Battlecrease provenance, which suggests to me a fear of losing centre stage to someone else. Naturally it would have been ideal for a modern hoaxer to be able to claim either or both came from the house, so you have to explain the denials from Mike and the big fat silence from anyone else involved.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz,if the dear diary was removed from battlecrease shortly before Mr Barrett announced its arrival to the general public then for him to profit from it he cannot tell the truth because the diary is the legal property of the then owner of battlecrease Mr dodds so he has to invent a story of how it came into his hands .The most logical thing to do would be to use the story that was decided upon when the police came knocking the one about it been in Mrs Barretts wardrobe since she was a little girl and they never brotherd reading it.!!

[caz]

Hi Caz,

How like the Hanratty Supporters Club is this?

Yes, Graham, I can see a few parallels.

If I remember correctly, Warner Inc got Kenneth Rendell, he who exposed the Hitler Diaries as fakes, to examine the Ripper Diary. Rendell, or so I recall, concluded after consultation and lab tests and pucks of money that the Diary is a modern fake. However, didn't he then for some reason ask a guy called McNeill, who had developed a test to determine when ink was put onto paper (Ion Migration Test, was it?) to check the Diary, and didn't McNeill come up with a date something like 1920 +/- 15 years either way? And then didn't Rendell, who had supported this test, turn round and announce that McNeill's test must have been faulty as it didn't support his own conclusions?

In fact I seem to recall that when Shirley asked Rendell specifically why he thought the diary was a late 1980s fake (considering the 'best' his team could come up with scientifically was sometime prior to 1970), he referred to Mike's confessions - as if they made up for the scientific uncertainties! Unbelievable.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Actually, Caroline, I think they could under certain circumstances.

Hi Scotty,

But if someone did manage to engineer the diary's discovery in Battlecrease, they utterly failed to do anything with this ideal provenance. It was as if their hands were tied and their mouths were gagged, so what would the point have been?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The watch is one reason I go with the fence theory. The watch and Diary could just be sent straight to the fence, claiming they came from Battlecrease.

That doesn't really make any sense because Mike Barrett (if he was the fence in question?) has always strongly denied the Battlecrease provenance, which suggests to me a fear of losing centre stage to someone else. Naturally it would have been ideal for a modern hoaxer to be able to claim either or both came from the house, so you have to explain the denials from Mike and the big fat silence from anyone else involved.

Love,

Caz
X