The Ripper Diary: Old Hoax Theories

[caz]

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

[Pcdunn]

Why a lady's watch? Why not a man's watch, if it was / was supposed to have belonged to Maybrick or the real / fictional "Jack"?

[pinkmoon]

A good old fashioned shambles.

[MayBea]

Then you've lost another avenue of research, on a theory that's been stalled for years.

You have to have at least a working hypothesis on its origin... It's impossible to debate providence of a theory that doesn't have one.

[GUT]

That's right, Livia. I'd totally forgotten about the JO on the watch.

If we agree that the gold watch at the estate sale and the "Maybrick watch" are one and the same, then we have two months (May 11 to July 9) for someone to concoct a Diary or the idea of a Diary and then purchase the watch. Not much time and then the hoaxer must then be the buyer or known to the buyer.

If James stole the watch from John Over over a possible 'rivalry' over Emma, could JO have wanted to re-acquire it and exact revenge?

But if they're not one and the same.

[MayBea]

That's right, Livia. I'd totally forgotten about the JO on the watch.

If we agree that the gold watch at the estate sale and the "Maybrick watch" are one and the same, then we have two months (May 11 to July 9) for someone to concoct a Diary or the idea of a Diary and then purchase the watch. Not much time and then the hoaxer must then be the buyer or known to the buyer.

If James stole the watch from John Over over a possible 'rivalry' over Emma, could JO have wanted to re-acquire it and exact revenge?

[Livia]

The Maybrick watch isn't monogrammed, as far as I can see. All there is is the RS, the mark of the case maker.

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.

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.

[Scott Nelson]

Anyone hiding the diary in Battlecrease could not engineer its discovery at a certain point in time, whether they hid it in 1889, 1939 or 1989.

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

[MayBea]

Battlecrease was stripped of everything ... "Watches" listed among the jewelry. One watch is described as counterspring, gold, keyless, monogrammed, open dial watch.

The Maybrick watch isn't monogrammed, as far as I can see. All there is is the RS, the mark of the case maker.

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.

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

In short, those who still believe in two modern fakes will tell you the tests were rotten

How like the Hanratty Supporters Club is this?

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?

The books by Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison and your esteemed self all sit in one of my book-cases, sadly un-read for several years. Something I will soon put right.

Best,

Graham

[caz]

How good was the scientific testing of the watch and the diary I hope caz could answer this for us.

I'm no scientist, pinky, but I believe it was as good as it could be with the technology and finances available at the time. Two independent scientists produced reports on the watch, for instance, with financial contributions by Albert Johnson himself. If he had known or suspected the engravings had been recently faked, I can't see him risking his own money to pay anyone to confirm it!

None of the tests was able to prove either item had been faked recently, which led to complaints from the modern hoax 'faithful' that more money thrown at more tests would surely reveal the truth - ignoring the fact that no amount of money or testing could ever prove modernity if the things were genuinely much older.

In short, those who still believe in two modern fakes will tell you the tests were rotten, while those who see two older artefacts will accept the tests were adequate. For science read faith.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Are we forgetting something?

The watch! Any old hoax theory has to include the watch, doesn't it?

Yep, I should think so, MayBea. I imagine the watch and diary were together at some point, but got separated and their significance only realised later, in the watch's case by Albert Johnson and his workmates in 1993; in the diary's case by Mike Barrett a year earlier.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's one thing placing it in battlecrease but for that to work it would have to be placed at a time and a place where it could be discoverd which then destroys the old hoax theory.

How so? You don't know when it was discovered and what happened next, do you? Anyone hiding the diary in Battlecrease could not engineer its discovery at a certain point in time, whether they hid it in 1889, 1939 or 1989. They'd have had to sit tight and wait.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It would be a disaster if Mr Barrett was to snuff it before we found out the truth.

Oh I disagree, pinky. The truth could never be established courtesy of Mike. I considered him a source of no useful evidence many years ago. Thankfully his word is not required for anything, because a) it can't be relied on without solid independent support, and b) he couldn't tell us anything about the diary's true origins anyway.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

But the start of the thread asks us to assume that it is an old hoax, I am not persuaded on that yet, but am still open.

How good was the scientific testing of the watch and the diary I hope caz could answer this for us.