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 1 hour and 26 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Debra A 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Darryl Kenyon 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (10 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)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (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
  #1481  
Old 03-20-2018, 12:43 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

My goodness, the Caroline thing is not difficult.

If she genuinely has a memory of her father pestering Tony Devereux about the Diary then it must be obvious that the Diary was in existence before Tony died. It would mean that I am wrong about Mike's reason for buying a Victorian diary (unlikely) and it would equally mean that the Diary was not lying under the floorboards of Battlecrease for 125 years until 9th March 1992 (likely).

So my theory doesn't fit in any way with what Caroline remembered.

But what I have been saying is that it is a nonsense to argue that Caroline's memory is genuine AND also to say that she confused Eddie Lyons with the late Tony Devereux. Absolute and pure nonsense.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1482  
Old 03-20-2018, 12:44 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I have no idea what the significance of the observation that Caroline went down to London in June 1992 is supposed to be. Nor what response to that is awaited. Caroline going to London in 1992 seems to me in no more need of explanation than her parents allowing her to speak to researchers.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1483  
Old 03-20-2018, 01:01 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The latest post on the Antiques Roadshow strikes me as garbled and incoherent. As far as I can make out there seems to be some suggestion that I have changed my position or something, which is not the case.

Here's what I said about the Antiques Roadshow in my first post on the subject (#1418):

"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."

Then to RJ Palmer shortly afterwards I said (#1421):

"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."

Those points are as true today as when I first made them. To repeat: The discussion about the watch could not have been "triggered" by a recent episode of Antiques Roadshow.

That strikes me as a very important point. It's natural for work colleagues to discuss a programme they saw on television the previous evening, or perhaps even a few days earlier, especially over the weekend, but odd and unnatural for them to be discussing a programme that must have been broadcast at least six weeks earlier (and possibly much, much, earlier than that, who knows?)

The point is that this long gap is entirely consistent with my theory that the discussion in the college about 18 carat gold watches was a blatant pretext to induce Albert to bring his watch into work. It will be recalled that the initial response to this was that the BBC people must have somehow been involved! But they could only have been involved if there had been a recent broadcast of Antiques Roadshow involving a gold watch. That was what we were being told although now, having learnt that there was no such programme, that line of attempted mockery is abandoned.

But if not a recent programme when was it broadcast? And why were the security guards discussing it on that day?

It surely goes without saying that one of the reasons I am suggesting Albert was induced to bring the watch into work was because it was known by the scamster that there was a microscope available. It was part of the plan!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1484  
Old 03-20-2018, 01:13 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
This just goes on and on and on.

There is really only one question.

Caz do you beleive that Maybrick wrote the diary?

If the answer is yes then carry on. If however the answer is no ( and I have read all these tideious posts, so have a good idea about the answer) then all this is an irrelevance.
If James Maybrick did not write the document it is by definition A FAKE.

It does not matter at all if it is modern or old, it's will still have no factual bearing the Whitechapel killer.

I am aware of about 3 regular posters who still beleive it is genuine, several others are still sitting on the fence. That should be the only debate.
I happen to entirely agree with you Steve. I'm fully aware that I am a participant in this tedious and completely pointless discussion and my only defence is that there is so much disinformation that I feel needs correcting. It seems to just go round and round in circles with points I thought had been disposed of a long time ago just being repeated after a certain amount of time and we go round and round again.

There is obviously a complete stalemate and without any new information the discussion is going nowhere. Occasionally we get snippets of what seems to be new evidence but no source is ever provided and it's unclear if what we are being told is a fragment of some misremembered conversation or accurate information. I had high hopes of James Johnston but, for reasons best known to himself, he point blank refused to post transcripts of his interviews with the electricians, having posted some selective and possibly downright misleading snippets. Keith Skinner has thankfully posted some real new information but he seems to have disappeared and I'm not sure if the documents that we were promised are now going to materialise.

But, yes, this never ending argument (in which I find myself involved) about whether it was Person A who forged the diary or Person B is beyond satire!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1485  
Old 03-20-2018, 11:28 PM
Spider Spider is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

But, yes, this never ending argument (in which I find myself involved) about whether it was Person A who forged the diary or Person B is beyond satire!
......... or of course whether it is in fact genuine (for us in the minority )
__________________
‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1486  
Old 03-20-2018, 11:46 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
We've been over all this before John. You asked for evidence that Mike was a journalist and I provided it. The fact that his wife might have assisted him with the articles published in his name gets us nowhere because the whole point of Mike's 1995 affidavit is that his wife was the person who transcribed the diary so that it was effectively written as a husband and wife team, just like the articles.
Hallo David,

I don't actually recall asking for evidence that Mike was a journalist, but thanks for the information anyway!

A good point about Mike's affidavit: according to him it was his wife who actually forged the Diary, although he apparently dictated the information to her. Have you also noticed how many basic spelling and grammatical errors there are in the affidavit?

For example, in just one sentence he writes "emphasie", instead of "emphasize"; omits to place a comma after "realised" when writing, "but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this..."; writes "to", when he means "too"; and the relatively simple word "distinctive" is misspelt.

Last edited by John G : 03-20-2018 at 11:48 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1487  
Old 03-21-2018, 12:01 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
This just goes on and on and on.

There is really only one question.

Caz do you beleive that Maybrick wrote the diary?

If the answer is yes then carry on. If however the answer is no ( and I have read all these tideious posts, so have a good idea about the answer) then all this is an irrelevance.
If James Maybrick did not write the document it is by definition A FAKE.

It does not matter at all if it is modern or old, it's will still have no factual bearing the Whitechapel killer.

I am aware of about 3 regular posters who still beleive it is genuine, several others are still sitting on the fence. That should be the only debate.

The effort put in by those claiming it is old is truly remarkable and I reluctantly am forced to wonder if this is not a smoke screen, to disguise the fact that they really do beleive it is genuine but just won't say so.

If I offend any friends by those comments, so be it.
But this continual back and forth has not moved a single pixel on the screen in either direction and is unlikely ever to.

I will now return to completing Bucks Row.

Steve
Depends on your perspective, Steve. I mean, you could argue that all we really need to know is that Polly Nichols was murdered, it's immaterial as to who actually killed her!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1488  
Old 03-21-2018, 01:30 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Depends on your perspective, Steve. I mean, you could argue that all we really need to know is that Polly Nichols was murdered, it's immaterial as to who actually killed her!
Hi John

To a degree I agree with that.
I have no idea who killed her?
There is a difference, the killer of Nichols whoever it was, is very material to the other murders.
And yes if Maybrick wrote the diary that is material too.
However if it's by someone else it loses all relevance to the actual murders and become a work of fiction.
Like that of Carnac.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1489  
Old 03-21-2018, 02:01 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,019
Default

The diary is certainly a fake, and has no relevance to the murders. However, the diary's origins remain unresolved, and that's what sustains (some of) our interest.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1490  
Old 03-21-2018, 06:24 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,228
Default The Case of the Vanishing Scratches

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Is there actually a coincidence of the Murphys suddenly deciding they may as well sell the "valuable" gold watch they had lying around doing nothing at about the same time Mike was trying to get a publisher for the diary? Not as far as I am aware. On what date did they decide to sell the "valuable" (i.e. a few hundred quid at most) watch that they had lying around doing nothing? January 1992? February 1992? Not much of a coincidence if it was before the supposed Battlecrease discovery.
Of course, David, but what if it was at any point after March 9th?

Quote:
The explanation as to why it was not sold by Ron Murphy as soon as he received it from his father-in-law is to be found in his statement, i.e. "it did not work". You don’t sell a watch that doesn’t work. That is precisely why it went to Dundas for repair.
Right, so a jeweller with a watch worth up to £300 that doesn't work waits - how long would you say - to find someone who can repair it? Was Dundas the only watch repairer in the Wirral? Or were they all too snowed under with watches to repair that they couldn't fit Murphy's in until 1992?

Quote:
There really is nothing that is not easy to explain in a jeweller getting a not terribly valuable watch fixed and then putting it on sale.

Unless of course you think everyone is telling lies about everything, well then of course you create your own mystery which surprise, surprise, you can’t explain!
Perhaps you'd like to have a go at explaining for me the mystery of the vanishing scratches then, without accusing Murphy of telling any lies?

Here we are:

Let me try and explain what must have happened for the Maybrick and ripper markings to have been put in the watch in 1993:

Murphy the jeweller opens up the back of the gold watch before putting it on sale in his shop window, sometime in early to mid 1992. He sees some faint scratch marks on an inner surface and tries - but fails [and this is the important bit] - to polish them out to improve its appearance.

Along comes Albert with the winnings from a horse race and snaps up the watch on July 14th 1992.

Now someone, who knows Albert has this watch - either Albert himself, his half-brother Robbie or A.N.Other - sees an early newspaper story the following Spring, about a diary that has come to light, linking James Maybrick to the JtR murders, which will not be published until the Autumn [so no clues yet about which murders will be claimed on this occasion].

So far so good?

That person then thinks "I know, I could use Albert's gold watch to create a companion piece for this diary".

So he has a closer look at the watch, to see if there's a surface inside that would be suitable for forgery purposes [where have we heard that one before?] and what does he find? Those same faint scratches that Murphy was unable to polish out the year before. But he doesn't know about any of this, nor presumably how those scratches got there to begin with or when, nor whether anyone else may have seen them in recent years. Would the hoaxer even recognise any recent efforts to polish them out? Presumably not, if neither Drs Turgoose or Wild could date the scratches or the polishing as recent, using their electron microscopes.

The hoaxer can't risk those scratches being examined at a later date and found to be recent, because that would prove his own work even more recent, so now he will either have to find another watch with a nice, scratch-free surface, which will be less of a headache, or he'll need to do what he doesn't yet know defeated Murphy the jeweller. He'll need to polish them out so completely, before even starting on his Maybrick and ripper work, that the surface will be smoother than a baby's bottom and betray no sign of those original scratches even under microscopic examination. Oh well, it'll be worth it in the end.

So - once the markings have been applied to the now pristine surface, our intrepid hoaxer polishes and ages the surface again, before applying some superficial scratches, which he polishes and ages again, until the effect is the same as it was when he first opened the back and saw the surface he was faced with. Not only this, but if anyone uses electron microscopy or any other technique to ascertain the order of all the markings and scratches now there, it will be clear that the Maybrick and ripper ones were made first.

As luck would have it, this turns out to be the best possible case scenario. Without knowing what the jeweller may or may not have done with the watch previously, or what he may or may not have known about its physical condition and appearance, inside and out, the watch is taken back to the shop, to show Murphy what is now on that inner surface and to ask him what he knows about this curious timepiece, and would you credit it? He comes out with: "Oh yes, I saw those faint scratches back in 1992 but couldn't polish them out. Sorry about that".

You couldn't make it up, could you? Any other scenario and the hoaxer could not have hoped for this kind of luck.

Smooth, completely unscratched surface when the hoaxer first looks at it? Much easier to use, but too risky unless he can either avoid the jewellers shop like the plague, and hope nobody else will track down where and when the watch was bought and what was known about it by then, or go back and try bribing Murphy with a few quid to lie for him, in the event that he knows damned well the markings were not there in 1992, because he remembers cleaning it thoroughly inside and out and the surface in question was untouched.

See, to my mind, there's nothing remotely simple about any of this.

Love,

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


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 03:58 PM.


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