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 Abby Normal 5 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Joshua Rogan 15 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 34 minutes ago.
Research Related: Henry Kelly - by Paddy 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (59 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (2 posts)
General Discussion: The man who named JtR! - (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
  #1511  
Old 03-23-2018, 04:59 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
Hi Steve,

Yes, obviously any forgery would be irrelevant to the Whitechapel murders. I'd still like to know who wrote it though!


That's a different question and the answer would be of interest. However i doubt we will ever know. Egos, reputation and legal issues preventing that.
That's if it not genuine, and I see nothing to argue it is.

STEVE
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1512  
Old 03-26-2018, 04:38 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
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?
Hi Steve,

Apologies for the belated response.

No, I don't believe Maybrick wrote the diary.

Nor do I believe Mike wrote it.

To me it reads like a spoof - the kind of hoax written to poke fun at the Maybricks in general and "Sir Jim" in particular.

Quote:
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 would be irrelevant to those who are only seeking a solution to the Whitechapel Murders. Just as it would be irrelevant to those who are only interested in, say, the murder of Julia Wallace, or any of the other topics featured and debated on this website.

Quote:
It does not matter at all if it is modern or old, it's will still have no factual bearing the Whitechapel killer.
Well in that context it wouldn't matter, but why does it have to be in that context? Can't it be an interesting mystery for some of us in its own right? I'd love to know who wrote it, when and why. I'd also love to know who put the markings in the watch, when and why. It wasn't me who granted Maybrick suspect status here, and I can only find one thread which I began myself, which was to announce the death of Mike Barrett, who will always be closely associated with the diary.

Quote:
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.
Because you say so, Steve? A debate involves more than one person, and I wouldn't be here at all if there was nobody else still debating the origins of the diary and watch. I do have other interests in life, believe it or not. But when I see people posting opinion as fact, or when I think their reasoning ignores certain evidence or their speculation relies on a total lack of evidence, I will reserve the right to post my own twopenn'orth on the matter.

Quote:
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.
Beneath you, Steve.

Quote:
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.
And I wish you joy of it. You've been doing a terrific job judging by what I've seen so far. And I wouldn't dream of turning up there and suggesting it's a waste of time if it won't help you solve the murder of Polly Nichols or any of the others.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1513  
Old 03-26-2018, 04:47 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
That's a different question and the answer would be of interest. However i doubt we will ever know. Egos, reputation and legal issues preventing that.
That's if it not genuine, and I see nothing to argue it is.

STEVE
Could you explain what you mean by egos, reputation and legal issues preventing you and I from knowing the identity of the diary's author?

The diary handwriting has been out there for anyone to examine from October 1993, and as far as I know nobody has ever been prevented from doing their own detective work to try and match it with handwriting from their own preferred suspect. I wonder how you think that could have been achieved in any case?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1514  
Old 03-26-2018, 09:51 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Did the "Rendell team" conclude that pen went on paper 'prior to 1970'? I don't think so.

The 11 page "Report on the Diary of Jack The Ripper" produced by K.W. Rendell in September 1993 referred to the the conclusion of Rod McNeil and his ion migration test that the diary was written in 1921 (plus or minus 12 years).

However, it was Rod McNeil individually, not the "Rendell team" who then stated in October 1993 that his opinion was that the diary was "created prior to 1970" while adding that "as with any scientific test there is always the possibility of error associated either with the operator or the techniques himself".

Possibly this backtracking by McNeil damaged the credibility of his ion migration test with the "Rendell team" for Rendell published a book in 1994 entitled "Forging History" in which he said that the diary was "written very recently, probably within a year before its announced "discovery"".

Therefore, I don't think it's proper for anyone to say in a post that the Rendell team concluded, rightly or wrongly, that pen went on paper 'prior to 1970'.
The above was posted by me on 23 Jan (#604). It was in response to a claim by the world's leading Diary expert that the Rendell team had concluded that the Diary was written "prior to 1970".

The response to my post by the world's leading Diary expert on 25 Jan was "Fair enough, David" (#644) indicating a full acceptance of what I had said, namely that it was Rod McNeil, not the Rendell team, which said the Diary was written "prior to 1970".

Today, however, I see in another thread that the same person has posted this:

"The Rendell team in the US was hired by diary sceptics, but I don't see anyone suggesting this affected their results or objectivity. In fact, they stuck their neck out with a date for the diary's creation, based on science, finally settling on 'prior to 1970', which Rendell himself went on to undermine by appearing to accept Mike Barrett's claim to have forged it himself!"

It's unbelievable. It was only 3 months ago that this person was accepting that the Rendell team did not settle on a "prior to 1970" date. And so the cycle of misinformation goes on. It's like some computer software that can't be deprogrammed and continues to repeat the same thing, churning out the same old nonsense, regardless of how many times it is corrected.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1515  
Old 03-26-2018, 10:40 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Here is what was posted in another thread today by the world's leading expert on the watch:

"Oh I'm sure that's why the Johnsons returned to the jewellers with the watch - to show them the scratch marks, explain what they had revealed under the microscope and ask what they knew about the watch, if anything. That's how the Murphys were able to say they had tried to clean up the scratches because they didn't realise what they were."

This person has complained today about people posting opinion as fact and speculating without evidence (both things she is very familiar with) so let's see how much evidentially supported fact there is in the above two sentences.

Did the Johnsons return to the jewellers with the watch to show them the scratch marks? Where is the evidence for it? If they did, why did Ron Murphy say in his statement of 20 October 1993:

"Having now seen the watch for the first time since selling it...".

Doesn't that indicate that the Johnsons did NOT return to the jewellers with the watch? If they did, why did Murphy say in October 1993 that he was seeing the watch for the first time since he sold it in July 1992 (and thus for the first time since the scratches were noticed in May 1993)?

What about the second sentence? Did "the Murphys" say they had tried to clean up the scratches? Not in 1993 it seems. At least there is no record of them doing so.

In fact, when R.K. Wild of Bristol University came to test the watch in January 1994, there was no mention made of any polishing carried out in the previous two years, but it was stated in his report of 31 Jan 1994:

I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing.

This information could only have come from Albert Johnson who was instructing Wild to carry out the tests. It means that Johnson told Wild that the scratches had been noticed and an attempt made to polish them out at some point between 1984 and 1988. Where did Johnson get this information from?

Well it could have been from Mr Stewart, Ron Murphy's father-in-law, because the Murphys said that the watch was in Stewart's possession during the 1980s. According to Inside Story (p.43) Albert Johnson did speak directly to Mr Stewart who was then battling with onset of Alzheimer's Disease but he could only recall that he had bought the watch between 1978 and 1983. There is no mention there of him remembering that he saw the scratches and tried to polish them out which, being so important, is surely something Albert would have mentioned to the authors of Inside Story and the authors of Inside Story would have included in their book.

The alternative is that Johnson was told by the Murphys that their father-in-law had seen the scratches but not only is this something also not apparently mentioned to the authors of Inside Story by Johnson, and not mentioned by the Murphys to Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner when they spoke to them in February 1997, but it would throw into sharp relief that they clearly did not mention to Johnson prior to 31 January 1994 that they had attempted to polish out the scratches in 1992 otherwise Johnson would surely have mentioned it to R.K. Wild and Wild would have included this information in his report.

It was not until February 1997, four years after they had first been questioned about the watch, that Ron Murphy informed Harrison and Skinner that, when he was cleaning the watch after receiving it back from Dundas (in early 1992), he saw scratches which he then attempted to polish out. He then said "I tried to buff them out with jeweller's rouge". Note that he refers to himself here in the singular - so it wasn't "the Murphys" doing the polishing - although he also said "we tried to clean them" which makes it unclear as to whether he did the cleaning by himself or with his wife (or another person). But he certainly wasn't talking about cleaning which he had done in the 1980s. In fact, no mention was made about any cleaning having been done by Mr Stewart in the 1980s.

It's not even clear how Murphy managed to see the "barely visible" scratches and feel that they needed to be polished out. But is it supposed to be the case that his father-in-law had independently spotted the scratches too and had tried to polish them out in the 1980s?

Another oddity is that, according to Feldman, at the meeting in February 1997, "Mr Murphy also implied that it was the first time he had seen the watch since he sold it to Albert." Why did he imply such a thing bearing in mind that he said in his October 1993 statement that he was seeing the watch for the first time since he had sold it?

If we add to all this the fact that we are being told by the world's leading expert on the watch that Mr Murphy, his wife AND his father suffering from Alzheimer's Disease were all lying through their teeth about when they acquired the watch in the first place, and from whom they acquired it, then one has to seriously question whether they really did see scratches on the watch before selling it to Johnson.

If one asks the question: cui bono? Who stood to benefit from a false claim that there were scratches on the watch prior to July 1992? The answer is very simple: Albert and Robbie Johnson.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1516  
Old 03-27-2018, 06:26 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I suppose one can only admire the bare faced cheek of someone who accuses a probably totally honest jeweller of buying and selling stolen property and of lying about it now exploding with moral outrage at the idea that someone could possibly accuse the late Robbie Johnson of being involved in a money making scam!
I'd be interested to know who has accused 'a probably totally honest jeweller of buying and selling stolen property'. I've done no such thing so I don't know who you mean. All I have suggested is that if Murphy bought the watch in early 1992 from someone calling into his shop, and sold it on in the July, it would be perfectly understandable why he might be wary when that customer returned the following summer to show him the scratch marks inside the back and ask him about the thing's history.

It would have been a completely normal way of doing business, to buy second hand watches or jewellery from callers to the shop, no questions asked. I sold some gold jewellery in recent years on the same basis. And whether the 'little man' really did come into a Lancaster shop with the watch several years previously, and did a deal with Murphy's father-in-law, as was claimed, or some other little man came into Murphy's shop with it as recently as 1992, the basic story and the basic transaction would be virtually identical, and would carry exactly the same risk that the little man concerned may not have come by his timepiece honestly. I'm doing no more than suggesting Murphy could have wanted to lessen this risk by backdating what was admittedly the purchase of a watch from a complete stranger.

Either way, having acquired the watch from this complete stranger [which tells us bugger all about where he got it and when], Murphy would have been totally unable to help Albert or anyone else with a provenance for the watch back to Maybrick, but he was able to help with the scratch marks, by confirming there had been several in 1992, which he'd tried to buff out with jeweller's rouge. If he'd seen nothing at all, or just a smooth scratch-free surface, he could easily have said so and would have been better off considering the hoax accusations that quickly followed Albert's discovery. His claim to have seen any scratch marks in 1992 could have got him accused of being in cahoots with Mike Barrett and putting them there himself!

Quote:
And I think I was very clear. The only reason I suggested that the jeweller might have falsely said he saw the scratches at the behest of Robbie and/or Albert was because we were being told by a Diary Defender he that he was a dishonest person who dealt in stolen property and lied about it.
You fibber, David. You were NOT being 'told' by anyone that Murphy 'was a dishonest person who dealt in stolen property'. So you had no excuse to suggest he may have been guilty of something even worse than you falsely claimed I accused him of - that he might have 'falsely said he saw the scratches at the behest of Robbie and/or Albert'. You really need to start using the quote function and stop fibbing about who has accused whom of doing what.

But in any case, what is this - just a game of one-upmanship to you? Or a serious attempt to explain why Murphy would have been trying to buff out several scratch marks in 1992, if a hoaxer in 1993 put the Maybrick/ripper markings onto an unblemished, unscratched, pristine surface?

Quote:
If he is not a dishonest person who dealt in stolen property and lied about it then I would come up with another theory to explain the apparent discrepancies in his statement but the Diary Defenders first need to work out whether Mr Murphy was honest or dishonest.
Nice try, David. Nobody needs to do anything 'first'. You either have a sensible explanation or you don't. If you have since posted it I'll read it in due course. I hope it's worth waiting for.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 03-27-2018 at 06:37 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1517  
Old 03-27-2018, 07:59 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Caz, yes it is a intriguing mystery from a purely academic point of view
it's in the suspect forum, under Maybrick, I feel given that most agree it's not by Him, maybe most of these threads, with neither side prepared to give 1 inch, could, maybe should be in a different forum.
However that no critism of anyone, it's just the way things have developed.

Hindsight is wonderful!


Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post


Beneath you, Steve.

Now that you have confirmed your position, I unreservedly withdraw the comments from yourself, it was not aimed solely at yourself, as you can see from the original post which was in the plural I beleive.



Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post


And I wish you joy of it. You've been doing a terrific job judging by what I've seen so far. And I wouldn't dream of turning up there and suggesting it's a waste of time if it won't help you solve the murder of Polly Nichols or any of the others.

Love,

Caz
X
Thank you very much for that Caz.

Well you see it may well help with getting a fuller picture of Bucks Row, the long run.
It may help establish a tighter timing for the murder and it may point towards or away from some suspects. And look at that case from an holistic viewpoint.
However it's not a suspect work, and I have been clear from the start over the purpose. That is to asses the sources and look at various options. Oh and to provide over 300 pages of sources, which is probably going to be it's main plus point.

All the best

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1518  
Old 03-27-2018, 08:19 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Could you explain what you mean by egos, reputation and legal issues preventing you and I from knowing the identity of the diary's author?

The diary handwriting has been out there for anyone to examine from October 1993, and as far as I know nobody has ever been prevented from doing their own detective work to try and match it with handwriting from their own preferred suspect. I wonder how you think that could have been achieved in any case?

Love,

Caz
X
Happy to clarify Caz.

If we look at all those unloved in the diary issue, from Researchers to individuals linked to the discover, what we often see, on both sides of the argument, is blurring of facts, so much is hearsay, often not backed by actual reliable sources.
In that case there is too much at stake for some, no fingers pointed at anyone, to tell all they know.

Legal issues, that's simply. Given it was claimed to be genuine, anyone now admitting that they were involved in or aware of its production, could face problems.


Handwriting, well assuming it's not by Jim or Mike, we are left with a vast field of possabilties. To find a match would probably be pure chance.


Basically, the true identy is probably lost and it's in no ones interest for the hoaxer to be revealed except in our little world, where such would be greatly welcomed.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1519  
Old 03-27-2018, 08:36 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
My goodness, it was only four days ago that I was told :

"why would [Anne Barrett] imagine [Eddie Lyons] would object to her story, much less want to challenge it, with evidence of his own criminal activity, in stealing from a house he had worked in?... 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."

Yet today, in another thread, the possibility is raised of Eddie Lyons doing exactly the thing that I was told Anne would not have worried about for one second. Thus, it is said:

"Had Eddie said bluntly to Feldy in early 1993: "Look, here's my daily work sheet for March 9th 1992, showing I helped out in Maybrick's old bedroom by lifting the floorboards first thing, and I know for a fact that Mike called an agency that same afternoon about the diary I seen and shown him down the Saddle that lunchtime. Check with the agency if you don't believe me. Now what's my confession worth?"

Obviously Eddie could have said exactly the same thing to Feldy in July 1994. So doesn't that mean that Anne should have been worried that he might have done so?
Hi David,

Apples and oranges. Clearly Eddie said no such thing to Feldy, either in early 1993, July 1994 or at any other time, and never had any intention of doing so.

Which makes both my points for me: a) Anne could bank on nobody piping up in the wake of her 'in the family' story to say "Hold on, I've got a better one. I stole it from Paul Dodd while working in his house in March 1992"; and b) for exactly the same reasons, Feldy could not bank on Eddie giving him the kind of information that would have made his confession credible.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1520  
Old 03-27-2018, 08:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Handwriting, well assuming it's not by Jim or Mike, we are left with a vast field of possabilties. To find a match would probably be pure chance.
I agree entirely, Steve.

Quote:
Basically, the true identy is probably lost and it's in no ones interest for the hoaxer to be revealed except in our little world, where such would be greatly welcomed.
I would say it is mostly in the interests of anyone, alive or dead, who has ever been wrongly suspected or accused of hoaxing the diary and watch, for the true culprit(s) to be identified.

If anyone here has a particular interest in identifying them as x, y or z, I'd have to wonder about their motives.

Personally I only have an interest in this mini mystery being solved to everyone's satisfaction, regardless of who the 'baddies' were, when they caused the mischief and why.

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 11:30 AM.


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