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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Trevor Marriott 37 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Debra A 50 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 5 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Simon Wood 7 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - by Mayerling 8 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Mayerling 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (9 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (3 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (1 posts)
Visual Media: "Mysteries at the Museum" features JtR Museum - (1 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - (1 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
  #301  
Old 03-13-2018, 06:08 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 283
Default

Before my grammar guardian scolds me, Johnson's=Johnsons.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 03-13-2018, 07:15 PM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirectorDave View Post
What we have discovered, or rediscovered in the last month or so with the transcript Mike Barrett is the prime suspect as the author of the words and one of his family or friends the hand-writer.

Barrett was Merseyside Jack...and should be regarded no better than John Humble.
Interesting thoughts Dave. Agreed Mike Barrett was full of bull.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 03-14-2018, 12:56 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirectorDave View Post
What we have discovered, or rediscovered in the last month or so with the transcript Mike Barrett is the prime suspect as the author of the words and one of his family or friends the hand-writer.

Barrett was Merseyside Jack...and should be regarded no better than John Humble.
On what basis is Mike the "prime suspect." Acccepting his original affidavit runs into difficulty because he changed his story numerous times.

But what if we provisionally accept it? Well, on that basis he doesn't say he operated alone but that he was part of a conspiracy. And if you argue that he lied about that, then why accept any part of his account?

Of course, he makes it very clear that he had the primary role. However, this is a man who had a history of making wildly exaggerated claims about his achievements, so why should we accept his boasts this time?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 03-14-2018, 01:23 AM
DirectorDave DirectorDave is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Kingdom of Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
On what basis is Mike the "prime suspect." Acccepting his original affidavit runs into difficulty because he changed his story numerous times.
Do you have a name of someone else? Who is the Prime Suspect if not Barrett....Maybrick?

Quote:
But what if we provisionally accept it? Well, on that basis he doesn't say he operated alone but that he was part of a conspiracy. And if you argue that he lied about that, then why accept any part of his account?
I don't think he lied, it was a conspiracy...someone else did the handwriting.

Quote:
Of course, he makes it very clear that he had the primary role. However, this is a man who had a history of making wildly exaggerated claims about his achievements, so why should we accept his boasts this time?
OK, let's accept nothing he ever said, lets ignore the lot....what are we left with?

A published journalist/writer presents a "Journal" not in the handwriting of the apparent author and the book itself appears to have been something else before it was this diary.

The simple facts are damning.
__________________
My opinion is all I have to offer here,

Dave.

Smilies are canned laughter.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 03-14-2018, 03:07 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirectorDave View Post
Do you have a name of someone else? Who is the Prime Suspect if not Barrett....Maybrick?



I don't think he lied, it was a conspiracy...someone else did the handwriting.



OK, let's accept nothing he ever said, lets ignore the lot....what are we left with?

A published journalist/writer presents a "Journal" not in the handwriting of the apparent author and the book itself appears to have been something else before it was this diary.

The simple facts are damning.
I didn't say we should ignore everything he said. What I have suggested in the past is that his role in any conspiracy-and Mike himself stated there was a conspiracy, and therefore others were involved-was much more peripheral than the central role he assigns to himself.

This makes sense when you consider he had form for making exaggerated claims about his achievements. Moreover, as I've also previously pointed out, time and time again he demonstrated that he was an unreliable blabermouth, who would give a story to almost anyone for the price of a pint. Therefore, in any conspiracy, I doubt he would have been trusted with any central role.

As for being a published journalist, he had a few articles published in a celebrity teenage magazine, which Anne had to "tidy up." So who knows how much of that work was his own.

What we do know is that prior to Doreen being contacted, he'd been unemployment for years, taking on the role of househusband, whilst his wife worked as a secretary. And virtually no one who ever met him thinks him capable of writing the diary.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 03-14-2018, 03:42 AM
DirectorDave DirectorDave is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Kingdom of Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I didn't say we should ignore everything he said.
I know you didn't say that, I never accused you of saying it, in fact it was me who said it.

You're saying "We can't tell if what Mike Barrett said is true"...I'm saying let's discount all of it.

Quote:
What I have suggested in the past is that his role in any conspiracy-and Mike himself stated there was a conspiracy, and therefore others were involved-was much more peripheral than the central role he assigns to himself.
Yes it's the whole "Mike Barrett couldn't write a sick note" narrative that is a total myth.

Quote:
This makes sense when you consider he had form for making exaggerated claims about his achievements.
Yes.

Quote:
Moreover, as I've also previously pointed out, time and time again he demonstrated that he was an unreliable blabermouth, who would give a story to almost anyone for the price of a pint.

Therefore, in any conspiracy, I doubt he would have been trusted with any central role.
Yes, but your idea of a conspiracy is a nest of forgers, mine is Mike, Ann and a couple of friends or family members.

Quote:
As for being a published journalist, he had a few articles published in a celebrity teenage magazine, which Anne had to "tidy up." So who knows how much of that work was his own.
Yep, we've done this to death really, back to "couldn't write a sick note"...fine Ann tidied up his articles, maybe even changed a few words or took a bit out, she is definitely part of any conspiracy so fine, so what?

Quote:
What we do know is that prior to Doreen being contacted, he'd been unemployment for years, taking on the role of househusband, whilst his wife worked as a secretary. And virtually no one who ever met him thinks him capable of writing the diary.
Back to "Sick note"....and this has been done to death too, who met him before his stroke?

Faked a stroke? Fine then he is deliberately trying to appear less competent than he was....and we all go around the Maybrickaround again.
__________________
My opinion is all I have to offer here,

Dave.

Smilies are canned laughter.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:01 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Hi Caz,

thanks for your detailed and highly interesting reply. I'm now inspired to dig out the 'diary books' I have knocking about somewhere in this book-ridden dump, and have a good old re-read of them with my cocoa.

It always struck me as a massive coincidence - if indeed it really was a coincidence - that the Diary and the Watch should come to light so close to one another, time-wise. This is not to say that I believe Albert Johnson was in on it, as I always accepted your contention that he was as honest as the day's long, and also that he turned down an offer for the Watch of (IIRC) about $40000 from an American collector. (Although I have to confess that it crossed my suspicious mind that Albert could have turned down the offer in case at some future time he was accused of fraud).
The problem I have, Graham, with the watch being a 'fraud' is that usually this word is used when there is a money motive. Nobody seems to have made any money at all from the watch, least of all Albert, who lost money over it - more than it cost him in the first place. There were no book royalties for him, and he turned down the offer from Texas on the reasonable grounds that if it turned out to be a hoax it would have been wrong to make so much money out of it, while if it was proved genuine it could be priceless, and it was after all bought for his granddaughter, whose interests he'd have kept in mind.

Quote:
However, just like yourself I think it would take a very long stretch of the imagination to accept that the Diary and the Watch are not linked in some way; by which I mean in relatively modern times. And it's always struck me as slightly odd that for a long time the Watch seemed to have slipped from under the gaze of those interested in the whole Diary thing. Who owns the Watch now, Caz?
The same person it was bought for back in 1992 I believe, Graham - Daisy, Albert's granddaughter.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:06 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
In the end, the Johnson's agreed to accept 3,000 for the rights of Smith to use it in the Harrison book.
My bad, rj. If I knew about this [or worse - if it's in Ripper Diary ] I must have forgotten.

That money wouldn't have been Robbie's though, surely? But at least it would have more than compensated Albert for the money he spent towards the testing.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:22 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
But if you encourage, plead, beg, and implore someone not to sell something, and they finally agree, it sure seems a little cheesy to come back later and use it as evidence of the man's honesty. At least to me, it does.
For my part, I never thought of the above in connection with my own personal experience of Albert. We all know about Mike's dishonesty over the diary, but there is nothing to suggest Albert was similarly dishonest over the watch. How was it remotely dishonest of him, if he did accept 3,000 from Robert Smith, in exchange for his agreement not to sell it to someone else for possibly ten times that amount? Why would anyone in that situation not have done the same thing? If they were dishonest, and couldn't care less about the diary book, but just wanted to make as much as possible out of a 'bandwagon' hoax, they would surely have told Smith to get knotted, no deal.

Quote:
In point of fact, Robbie Johnson was shown to have told two undeniable lies about the watch. When first showing it to Feldman he tried to peddle a story that it had been in the Johnson family for years. Which rather makes him the Anne Graham of the watch. (See Richard Whittington-Egan's book). The second lie was caught-out by Feldman himself. Robbie was playing dumb about the nature of the scratches, apparently momentarily forgetting that he had already given Feldy a complete diagram of them! (See the Final Chapter). If Johnson is on the up and up, why is he lying?
You may as well ask, why would Robbie lie if he knew Albert was doing a good enough job of it by himself?

How predictable to bring Robbie into this, to lower the tone and try to put a spanner in the watch works. There is no evidence whatsoever that Robbie even knew Albert owned the watch until Albert himself told him about the discovery at the college. So if Albert was not the victim of a motiveless con by his own half-brother, you have to have Albert as the conman.

Either way, Robbie is another red herring, dragged from his grave to support a weak theory.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 03-14-2018 at 05:24 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:42 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,329
Default

Caz and rj,

I now have Ripper Diary in front of me, and on Pg 78 I read that the Johnsons (plural) had in mind a selling-price for the watch which the prospective buyer Robert Davis thought well above his estimation of the value of an object whose provenance was still open to question. Davis said he was looking at a price in the range $30 - 40000, which begs the question: just how much did 'the Johnsons' think it was worth? How much influence did Robbie have over his brother Albert in this matter, if any?

On Pg 79 of the Ripper Diary I read "Were the Johnsons [still plural] so confident that the watch would eventually be proved to be authentic and leapfrog in value or were they just taking a calculated risk that they would get a better price before it was exposed as a fake?" Even though posed as a question, this does seemingly suggest that at least one of the Johnson brothers was looking at the 's.

Caz, you're obviously the expert here, and I bow humbly to your far greater knowledge of the events and the people in them, but I do get the sense that there might have been more to Robbie that meets the eye.

I'm glad that the Watch did eventually end up in the possession of Daisy - some rare good in this whole sorry tale of the Diary and Watch.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
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 11:56 PM.


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