Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Varqm 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Varqm 3 hours ago.
Ripper Notes: Status of Ripper Notes? - by C. F. Leon 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by harry 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Batman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (18 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (15 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - (5 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
General Discussion: The Weapon - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4271  
Old 02-22-2018, 06:52 AM
StevenOwl StevenOwl is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Thanks Owl
dosnt the timing-right after the diary/maybrick came to light-raise your suspicions?

whats to stop someone, inspired by the diary, to scratch his name and the other stuff (I believe is the initials of the victims?) on it?

also-you really think someone like maybrick would scratch his name on the watch? hes well off enough-could just have his name engraved.
Yes, it is suspicious, but tests from 2 labs concluded that the scratches had been made at least tens of years earlier. While one of the labs admitted that it wasn't impossible for someone to have artificially aged the scratches, it seems as though some serious specialist knowledge would be required to do so. And also, for what it's worth, everyone who met Albert Johnson in connection with the watch seem to agree that he was a genuine and trustworthy man. He paid for the scientific tests out of his own pocket and, I believe, turned down a considerable financial offer for the watch back in the mid-1990s.

As for what Maybrick would or wouldn't have done, I'm not really sure any of us are able to say with any degree of certainty.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4272  
Old 02-22-2018, 07:01 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
whats to stop someone, inspired by the diary, to scratch his name and the other stuff (I believe is the initials of the victims?) on it?
What gets me is how these inscriptions weren't spotted sooner. Even though they're spidery and comparatively faint, they are nonetheless well-formed words and letters, and clearly not random scratches. Furthermore, the inscriptions are clustered around the hallmarks on the case, and hallmarks are one of the first things people take a really good look at when inspecting antiques. It goes with the territory.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4273  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:14 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
I mentioned this in Chris Jones' thread, but there was really no reason for her to maintain Devereux's place in the story at that point if Mike was going to unravel things. Up until that time she was not linked publicly to the origins of this photo album. She could have still been in the "Did you Nick it, Mike?" mode at that time and with no sweat off her brow.
Doesn't it rather depend on what exactly Mike might have gone on to 'unravel' next, Cris? If she knew he could reveal - with proof - that they had both knowingly played a part in passing off a very recently forged diary as Victorian, and that Devereux was dead months before Mike had even acquired the guardbook for it, what then? She'd have been stuffed whichever way she turned. Alternatively, if she knew he hadn't faked it, and she hadn't faked it, but knew Mike had only brought it home one day in March/April 1992, when Tony had been dead for months, she couldn't admit that either, having failed to contradict Mike's original 'dead pal' story. But in this case at least she'd have known Mike would never prove his forgery claims, and she could be reasonably confident that nobody was going to own up to it now - with proof - if it had been nicked.

Quote:
In fact, a Battlecrease provenance - and she had to be aware of it - would have been more fortuitous for her and really put a stop to Mike's 'greatest hoaxer' story and prevent him from dragging her into a rapidly deteriorating situation.
I'm not sure what she'd have been aware of by July 1994, Cris. I guess she could have read about the floorboard rumours the previous year, and Feldy may well have told her much more recently about those scheming electricians, but don't forget that he had completely washed his hands of them by this time, so how would Anne have gone about supporting a Battlecrease provenance herself, and what good would it have done her? Her position had been that Mike had brought the diary home sometime in late Spring/early Summer 1991, saying he got it from Devereux. Why would she latch on to a Battlecrease provenance, which Feldy had investigated and discarded as a scam, whether she knew the diary was nicked, and not until March 1992, or had no real idea if or when it had come from the house at any time?

Quote:
Instead, she doubles down with this inside the family story that drags her and her poor old Dad deeper into the abyss of this sham. This says a lot about what might have been at stake for her as well as the Battlecrease story itself.
I'm with you there, Cris. The one thing I can't believe is that she'd have thought she could ever get away with this if Mike, in blazingly angry 'confession' mode, could have produced proof that the guardbook had yet to be acquired and the diary handwritten into it, when it was supposed to have arrived back in Goldie Street, via Devereux and Mike, almost a year previously.

If Mike really had acquired the bloody thing from an auction at Outhwaite & Litherland at the end of March 1992, and Anne knew it, how in God's name could she have guessed that he - not to mention O&L themselves - would be utterly unable to produce a shred of evidence for it ever being there?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4274  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:26 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Thanks Owl
dosnt the timing-right after the diary/maybrick came to light-raise your suspicions?

whats to stop someone, inspired by the diary, to scratch his name and the other stuff (I believe is the initials of the victims?) on it?

also-you really think someone like maybrick would scratch his name on the watch? hes well off enough-could just have his name engraved.
I agree with your post Abby but the only point that I would make is that Maybrick would have been unlikely to have some jeweller engrave ‘I am Jack’ on his watch.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4275  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:29 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Thanks Owl
dosnt the timing-right after the diary/maybrick came to light-raise your suspicions?

whats to stop someone, inspired by the diary, to scratch his name and the other stuff (I believe is the initials of the victims?) on it?

also-you really think someone like maybrick would scratch his name on the watch? hes well off enough-could just have his name engraved.
Hi Abby,

There's also the coincidence of the watch being put up for sale in Spring 1992, and sold to Albert Johnson in the July, just when the diary publishing deal was being negotiated. Neither Albert nor the jeweller could have been aware of the diary's existence at this time, yet both agreed that the scratches were not made after purchase.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4276  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:32 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,783
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Abby,

There's also the coincidence of the watch being put up for sale in Spring 1992, and sold to Albert Johnson in the July, just when the diary publishing deal was being negotiated. Neither Albert nor the jeweller could have been aware of the diary's existence at this time, yet both agreed that the scratches were not made after purchase.

Love,

Caz
X
How can you be sure that is actually the case Caz?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4277  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:33 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I agree with your post Abby but the only point that I would make is that Maybrick would have been unlikely to have some jeweller engrave ‘I am Jack’ on his watch.
now that's funny
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4278  
Old 02-22-2018, 11:01 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
I find it interesting should the 'Diary' be a late forgery/hoax, that the originator of the alleged 'Maybrick Watch', (and the markings upon it being 'many tens of years old'), was, all those years earlier also throwing Maybrick's name in the frame. What a coincidence.
It would certainly be a coincidence were the markings actually "many tens of years old" but the expert who carefully examined the watch and stated this as his qualified opinion also said, "They could have been produced recently and deliberately aged by polishing".
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4279  
Old 02-22-2018, 11:05 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenOwl View Post
I've been thinking about the watch again recently myself. I just can't understand why it gets swept under the carpet and Diary takes centre stage.
I don't know who you think has been sweeping it under the carpet, Stephen, but regarding this thread, as I've had occasion to say before, it is expressly about the diary (see thread title). So it's hardly surprising that we have not been discussing the watch. If you want to discuss the watch you could always start a new thread.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4280  
Old 02-22-2018, 02:15 PM
Spider Spider is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
It would certainly be a coincidence were the markings actually "many tens of years old" but the expert who carefully examined the watch and stated this as his qualified opinion also said, "They could have been produced recently and deliberately aged by polishing".
Not according to another expert whose opinion was that the inclusion of the iron particles in the scribings probably from the implement used were impossible to have been introduced and aged at the time of scribing. Also given that the scribings were made by more than one implement makes it quite unlikely that it was concocted by a forger.
I thought that raising the watch on a diary thread may cause problems to some but the two items are linked and considering the possible time differences in their creation does raise some questions.
Maybe a Diary and Watch thread would be more appropriate then? Sometimes if things are discussed in isolation things can be missed.
__________________
‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

Last edited by Spider : 02-22-2018 at 02:19 PM. Reason: Update
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.