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 Darryl Kenyon 31 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - by brentano 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 17 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 18 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 18 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (8 posts)
General Discussion: Is this in bad taste? - (1 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (1 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (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
  #1441  
Old 03-18-2018, 04:03 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
What should touch a lot of nerves, dear caz, is you telling this forum that Albert Johnson "never made a penny" off the watch, when, in fact, he received a nifty £3000 from Robert Smith for the rights, without, of course, relinquishing ownership.
And I apologised straight afterwards when you corrected me, rj. Unlike some people, who cry like babies and take a fortnight to get over it when their lazy English is corrected.

Quote:
Meanwhile, in Robert Smith's letter to Montgomery he writes: "we should think of ways to encourage the Johnsons not to sell."

Note the plural. The Johnsons.
Considering the watch was bought as an investment for Daisy - Albert and Val's baby granddaughter, why is anyone surprised?

Quote:
If it is "lowering the tone" to mention Robbie Johnson, is Smith similarly "lowering the tone" by his use of the plural? In other words, including Robbie in these negotiations?
Where does Robert Smith explain that he was referring to Albert and Robbie?

Quote:
And why does Feldman constantly refer to Richard Nicholas as the Johnsons' solicitor?

That pesky tone-lowering plural again.

The fact is, Robbie was up to his armpits in peddling this watch, and he netted a nice little £3000 for his brother.
So what, unless you can connect Robbie to the making of the scratches, which, sticking my neck out, I imagine you can't? As you said, there was nothing illegal about the deal with Robert Smith to keep the watch from 'going abroad', like poor old Monty Druitt.

Quote:
He also told two verifiable lies about the watch, and was telling Feldman it had been in the family for years!
Ah well that's that then. He had years to put the scratches in it.

Quote:
Meanwhile, let's look at Albert Johnson's initial letter to Robert Smith. "I am sure if it proved genuine it would help the sale of your forthcoming book."

Hmmm. I don't know what the introductory letter of a "bandwagon hoax" would sound like, but this might be a pretty good prototype.
And how about an introductory letter from someone genuinely intrigued and excited by newly discovered markings in a Victorian watch, which very obviously supported this confessional diary supposedly written by the same person? How would that sound, if not exactly the same?

Quote:
Enter Tim Dundas.

"Marks on this watch relating to "Jack the Ripper" have been made on the watch since I examined and repaired it in 1992." --Timothy Dundas, The Clock Workshop, 4 Grange Road, Kirby, Wirral, in a sworn affidavit, 3 July, 1996.

Sorry caz, you're being fleeced. It's really that simple.
If it really is that simple, it's taking an awful long while for anyone to prove it. What's keeping them? Tim Dundas needn't apply for the post, because he was recalling a completely different watch from the one bought by Albert.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1442  
Old 03-18-2018, 04:22 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You really don't need to be a professor of English to interpret this sentence:

"The next day, Caroline remembers, her Dad went down to Tony’s house and pestered him about the origins of the Diary."

The meaning of this sentence, literally or any other way you like, is that Caroline remembered her father going to Tony's house and pestering him about the origins of the Diary.

If Caroline remembered her father going to Tony's house and pestering him then she simply MUST have been with her father in Tony's house at the time otherwise she could have had no memory of the pestering. It's utterly irrelevant whether she remembered any swearing and/or told Shirley of the swearing because Shirley literally tells us that she remembers the pestering!
Fine, so you MUST either believe this actually happened or you MUST believe young Caroline had to learn the whole thing off by heart, complete with the deceased Tony telling her Dad he was getting on his "fvcking nerves".

Which is it? Well, given that you clearly can't believe Mike needed to pester Tony while he was alive, about the origins of a diary they were planning to forge, several months before any of the materials would be acquired, the answer MUST be obvious to everyone.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1443  
Old 03-18-2018, 04:36 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I tell you what, though, it's hard to say how Caroline could have known for certain who was on the other end telephone. I mean, it's a real mystery how she could have known her father was speaking to Tony Devereux.

Oh hold on, actually, no it isn't. Because if the first words her father said on the telephone were "Hello Tony" she would actually have known for certain who was on the other end of the telephone.
Ah, but then she MUST not have listened properly to the rest of the conversation he had with Tony, because he could not possibly have been asking him, in 1991, about the origins of the guardbook he had just brought home with him, if that didn't happen until the end of March 1992, could he?

So she got the name right, but got the rest of it wrong? Or did she confuse a conversation her Dad had with Tony in 1991, with another conversation he had with someone else, at some other time, when the diary was already in Goldie Street?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1444  
Old 03-18-2018, 04:59 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
According to Inside Story, Albert mentioned the watch to colleagues at work "during a discussion about watches".

The world's leading expert on the subject, Caroline Brown, however, posted on JTR Forums on 29th August 2012:

"The story goes that following a conversation at work about an Antiques Roadshow which featured gold watches, Albert took his example in to show his colleagues that it was made in 18ct gold."

But where is the evidence that the Antiques Roadshow in question featured any gold watches?

And more importantly WHEN did this programme broadcast?

It's obviously too much to ask to be told the actual date on which the scratches on the watch were first seen. I can't find that date mentioned anywhere, although presumably it was shortly before Albert contacted Robert Smith on 3 June 1993.

But the fact of the matter is that the last episode of the 1993 series of Antiques Roadshow (which happened to be the 150th edition) was broadcast on BBC1 at 5.25pm on Sunday, 21 March 1993. It was followed by a special edition broadcast on the same channel at 5.25pm on Sunday, 28 March 1993. There were no more broadcasts of this programme after that date, prior to 3 June 1993.

If, therefore, someone did actually claim to have seen a feature on gold watches on the Antiques Roadshow at some point in the weeks prior to 3 June 1993, or indeed any episode of Antiques Roadshow in that period, they cannot possibly have been telling the truth.
Right, except that I don't think anyone mentioned whether it was a recent episode of the show or one they remembered from further back. If someone in my company today brought up a subject - any subject - that caused me to mention something which had featured in a tv programme, it wouldn't have to be a recent one. I may appear to have the attention span of a backward earwig, but I can actually remember stuff I first saw on the 'box' decades ago, and on which programme or show, never mind just a couple of months back.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 03-18-2018 at 05:02 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1445  
Old 03-18-2018, 05:08 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
One thing is for certain RJ, the discovery of the scratches had to have been on a day after 22 April 1993 for, on the day of the discovery, one of Johnson's colleagues said they had read the stories in the Liverpool Daily Post about Maybrick's Diary (which ran from 22-27 April 1993). And one gets the impression it must have been at least a few weeks after that time due to that man's vague memory of the story. If the discovery was shortly before 13 May 1993 then there had been no edition of Antiques Roadshow on television for well over a month before the discovery.

So it was absolutely impossible for them to have been chatting about a recently seen television programme which led Albert to bring the watch in.
But how 'recently seen', David? Has anyone said?

Of course, if you can't remember anything you saw on the tv 'well over a month ago', that might explain why you are having some difficulty with all this.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1446  
Old 03-18-2018, 05:13 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

People who are reading my posts properly will know that I already explained what I think was going on with Caroline. I did it in #1344 when I quoted Melvin Harris on the subject.

The only point I have been making here is that the theory that young Caroline overheard conversations in March 1992 between her father and another man about the Diary which she thought were conversations between her father and the late Tony Devereux is pure nonsense and does not fit with what Caroline told researchers about those conversations.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1447  
Old 03-18-2018, 05:34 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I am, of course, fully aware that no-one present at the time of the discovery of the scratches has said that they were chatting about a recent edition of Antiques Roadshow which featured gold watches. In fact, I went further and made the point that no-one as far as I know has said they had ever, at any time, seen an Antiques Roadshow feature on gold watches. This was something said by a forum member on the basis of no apparent evidence.

But here is what actually happened.

I referred in #1353 to the "possibility of Albert being set up to bring the watch into work."

In response, I was told sarcastically: "Set up by whom? One of his colleagues then? Or perhaps the Antiques Roadshow people who supposedly triggered the discussion with a feature on gold watches of different carats?"

Now we know that the sarcasm was wholly misplaced. The so-called "trigger" for the conversation does not involve "the Antiques Roadshow people" at all. There is no need to involve the BBC in a conspiracy here. That was my whole point. The discussion about 18 carat gold watches could have been a pretext to induce Albert Johnson to mention and bring into work his own watch.

I am glad it now seems to be accepted that Albert and the others could not possibly have been chatting about a recent edition of Antiques Roadshow so that the discussion between Albert's workmates which occurred in May 1993 about that programme, and about 18 carat gold watches, was initiated for no obvious reason whatsoever, thus being entirely consistent with the theory I have set out.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1448  
Old 03-18-2018, 05:45 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I see that in another thread today the following theory has been falsely attributed to me in a classic "straw man" strategy.

"Seems the only 'expert' we need on this one is David "Awesome" Orsam, who has speculated that one of Albert's colleagues could have 'set him up', presumably by asking him to bring in the gold watch he had mentioned buying the year before, whipping out his tools while a second colleague distracted Albert for ten minutes, so he could open up the back of the watch, prepare the inside surface before putting the marks there and some more random scratch marks on top, finally polishing them all until barely visible and looking suitably old and worn. Then it was just a simple matter of closing the watch, drawing Albert's attention back to it, asking him to open it for the assembled company and to hold it up to the light so the faint scratches could be seen, at which point the hoaxer suggested looking at them under the microscopes in the college lab."

The bit in bold, which is virtually all of it, is nothing I have ever suggested or even hinted at.

I am suggesting that the scratches could have already been placed on the watch and that the "Antiques Roadshow" discussion was part of a deliberate attempt for those scratches to be drawn to Albert's attention so that he would think they had been spotted by chance by someone who was not his own brother.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1449  
Old 03-19-2018, 12:59 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
For the person who continually keeps trying to downplay Mike Barrett's journalistic efforts (and, yes, I do mean you John G!) please note that Celebrity was not a "teenage magazine". It was a magazine aimed at adults.
Well, perhaps young adults!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1450  
Old 03-19-2018, 06:57 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
Hello Caz,

Quote:
No, by July 1994, Anne had less to fear from an electrician, if he pinched the diary one morning in March 1992, than she had to fear from Mike if they had spent time forging it together.
Precisely! But that was not the course she took.
Hi Cris,

Sorry, I should have worded that more clearly.

What I meant was that by July 1994 Anne would probably not have been expecting Mike and the diary tea leaf to trash her 'in the family story', even if they could have proved it had been in Paul Dodd's house instead. If it was simply not in their interests to do so, there was little for her fear.

However, if she knew it had never been in either family, because she and Mike had only finished writing it in early April 1992, she'd have been fully expecting him to trash her story with his own: "How we done it together". Yet it doesn't appear to have dawned on her that he might do this, or that he could do it - even though the previous month he had told the world he had forged it.

The course she took was to try and keep the original 'dead pal' story alive and kicking by providing a much needed explanation for what Tony Devereux was doing with the diary in 1991 and why he gave it to Mike. She was banking on nobody being both able and willing to disprove it.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 03-19-2018 at 07:01 AM.
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 11:31 AM.


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