|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:27 am: |       |
John Hacker wrote:
In addition, if the watch dated to 1848, and the "Maybrick" marks dated to 1888, there should still be 40 years worth of "superficial" scratches underneath them. And yet there weren't.
That's a very good point.
Turgoose, as quoted by Shirley Harrison, said:
On the basis of the evidence ... especially the order in which the markings were made, it is clear that the engravings pre-date the vast majority of superficial surface scratch marks (all of those examined).
Again, the more closely I look at the English, the less sense I can make of it, but it seems clear that he's saying the Maybrick scratches were made before the vast majority of superficial scratches (and perhaps he's saying they were made before all the superficial scratches he looked at).
But if the Maybrick scratches were made in 1888 or 1889, that's nearly a third of the way through the period from the watch's manufacture (1846/7) to Turgoose's examination in 1993. So if the superficial scratches came from normal wear and tear, a third of them should have predated the Maybrick scratches.
But in fact it's worse than that. By the Murphys' account, the watch had not been in working order for at least the previous 18 years, so there would have been no wear and tear during that time. And it seems unlikely that an antique watch from the 1840s would have remained in daily use until the mid 1970s anyway, so its working life could have ended a lot earlier than that.
Add to that Paul Stephen's suggestion that the manufacturers could have caused some of the damage, and it begins to look as though the superficial scratches should have been made more like half before and half after Maybrick's era.
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
Chris Phillips,
Good catch there on the "something stronger" bit of Paul's post, I had completely overlooked it. Based on Paul's description, I have to agree with your assessment that IF the scouring marks were an attempt to remove the scratches then they would have to at least predate Murphy's ownership of the watch.
I wonder if anyone asked him if he noticed any "scouring marks" when he was cleaning the scratches?
Paul,
Just to follow up on the John C. Over issue. I want to make it clear the the British fellow who provided me the information regarding his middle name did so only for the sake of completeness, and to make sure that all of the facts were made public and not because he necessarily felt that John Over would have put his middle initial there.
We don't know how he felt about the use of his middle initial, except to note that he did sign it on his marriage certificate. And modern attitudes might not reflect those of a 19th century man.
But it's interesting to note that Chris George seemed to think it was likely that the C. might have appeared as he is also British although he's living over here these days. (Maybe we've warped him somehow.  )
Personally, I think it's one of those things that probably comes down to individual preference. I know people who do use their middle initial, and people who don't. I took a quick glance at the Ripper books on my desk at the moment found titles by Stewart P. Evans, Anne E. Graham, and Paul H. Feldman.
But if they charged by the letter that could certainly play into it as well. 
Regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Paul Stephen--Thanks for that. So, the cartouche was on the watch since it was manufactured in 1847. Quite right. Let's now look a little closer at Mr. Over. You wrote last Friday: He was the husband of one of the Maybrick servants. '
For the sake of precision, could anyone identify the 'servant' that was married to Mr. Over? Unfortunately, I don't have access to Feldy's book at the moment. Thanks, RP
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
R.J.,
The woman married to Mr. Over was the nurse Emma Parker who was replaced by Alice Yapp in 1887. She was unmarried at the time she left the Maybrick's service. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any known connection between John Over and James Maybrick.
Regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
John--Many thanks. I was under the same impression, but wanted confirmation. Now, at the risk of flogging a dead-horse, let me quote what John Addison, Q.C., M.P., had to say about the residents at Battlecrease during the appropriate era. Addison made the statement during his opening speech at the Florie Maybrick trial, Wed., 31 July, 1889:
"At the beginning of this year and during the last year, he [ie., James Maybrick] "lived there with his wife and two children, and the remainder of his household consisting of four of a family and servants. There was a nurse who had lived longer with, and was more connected with, the master and mistress than any of the other servants, by name of Alice Yapp. There was a housemaid of the name of [Elizabeth]Brierley, a cook of the name of [Elizabeth]Humphreys, and a housemaid waitress of the name of [Mary]Cadwallader. These four servants, with the master and mistress and two children, constituted the inmates of Battlecrease House."
Later in the trial, Alice Yapp gave testimony which confirmed Addison's information, and everyone else who had contact with Maybrick during his final illness at Battlecrease (including Humphreys, Briereley, and Cadwallader) were also called to the stand.
As for Emma Parker, she married John Over in West Derby in Sept., 1887. As she was unmarried at the time she left the Maybricks, her employment must have ended sometime prior to September, 1887, or, in other words, the year previous to the Whitechapel murders. Quite interesting. Thanks, RP |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Dear One and all
Before getting too carried away with dates of various scratches before and after the Maybrick ones, I think you need to note that there are a few too many variables here to infer any real dates as such.
How do you know, for example, that the entire inside of the case wasn’t buffed up with rouge in say, 1875, when the watch was apparently serviced?
Just a thought!
Paul
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
Paul--Due to the delay in your message being posted, you can now see "what I was getting at." Emma Parker left Maybrick's employment sometime prior to September, 1887. She was not at Battlecrease in 1888-89. In short, Feldy's provenance is an anachronism.
Caz--Belated thanks for the additonal details about Dr. Wild's test. Much appreciated. I will mull it over. One more small question. On page 70 of Ripper Diary it states: "This time the examination, at a cost of £587.50, paid for by Johnson, would be carried out by metallurgist Dr. Robert Wild of the Interface Analysis Centre at Bristol University."
However, on pg. 246 of Shirley Harrison's book (Blake edition) she writes:
In January 1994, Albert agreed to sumbit the watch--at my expense this time--to a second test. It was taken to the Interface Analysis Centre at Bristol University. "
There seems to be some confusion over who paid for the test. Might seem like a minor point, but I'm interested. Was it in fact funded by Shirley Harrison? Cheers, RP |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
Paul Stephen wrote:
Chris P. Who says I’m arguing genuineness? I have certainly NEVER claimed that! All I am saying is that the scratches are more than a few decades old. That’s all I’m saying, and nothing more.
According to a few jeweller friends of mine, the practice of disfiguring watches with repair marks died out several decades ago. If there are repair marks on top of the Maybrick scratchings, then there is good circumstantial evidence to support that view.
I think the point applies equally if you're arguing the Maybrick scratches are several decades old. But I don't really see how it's possible for it to be old and a fake anyway.
I agree that if there is really a repair mark on top of "I am Jack", that would be strong evidence in favour of genuineness. Is it clear that "H 9/3" or whatever is a repair mark?
Before getting too carried away with dates of various scratches before and after the Maybrick ones, I think you need to note that there are a few too many variables here to infer any real dates as such.
How do you know, for example, that the entire inside of the case wasn’t buffed up with rouge in say, 1875, when the watch was apparently serviced?
Now I'm getting really confused. We know it was cleaned with rouge before being sold by Murphy, in an effort to remove some of the deeper scratches, so presumably the superficial scratches under discussion aren't ones that could be removed by such polishing?
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Paul,
"What are you getting at here RJ? And shame on you John for “completely” agreeing with it."
I don't see any shame in agreeing with it completely.
Emma Parker wasn't in the employ of the Maybrick's in 1888.
There's no know connection between James and John Over.
I reread the bits in Feldman's book on it before posting, and I'm quite comfortable with R.J.'s assessment that Feldman simply seized on the coincidence of initials to attempt to get around the "problem" they presented him. There is certainly no historical evidence that the watch was somehow passed to him. Beyond the somewhat less than convincing coincidence of initials. Perhaps "grasping at straws" might be a better phrase.
"John. Why do you have no reason to think Dundas got his watches confused? If you’re going to stand by that you must also believe that the telephone interview Feldman had with Mr Dundas in 1994 was a total fabrication of Feldman’s, as Mr Dundas is clearly NOT describing the Maybrick watch?"
Well, let's look at this logically Paul. When Feldman made his phone call, how exactly did he indicate WHICH Verity watch was at issue? (Remember the Mr. Murphy has said that several would have been sent to Tim at various times.) By date? That's easy to confuse. By receipt number? Again, easy. However when he gave his sworn deposition however he was shown a photograph of the actual watch in question. Much less easy. I think the odds that he got it mixed up are pretty slim.
By my point is that if he had EVER worked on a Verity watch with those markings he would have noticed them. Especially given the nature marks. If he had worked on a watch that contained those markings and was looking at in under magnification (which is the norm) then there is no reason to think he would have missed them.
"Do any of you chaps have a decent photograph of these scratches other than those in the books? You can’t make a lot of this out in the photos I have. It’s no use you saying these marks don’t go near either of the J’s if Turgoose, who actually had the watch, says they do."
The photograph in Ripper Diaries is pretty good, and Feldman's contains a drawing showing the relative positions of the marks. Assuming that by horizontal line Turgoose means the cross bar at the top of the J, they aren't near each other. The 9/3 appears to be close to the BASE of the J, but I don't see how the sharp angled bottom "Tail" of the J could be construed as horizontal in any sense of the word.
Turgoose didn't actually say they were near each other as far as I know. Caz said that Turgoose made the observation that it was apparently older. That is why I was wondering what the basis for the claim was. Is it is because they cross as you suggest? Is there an incidental scratch under the J but over the 9/3? Was his interpretation based on degree of polishing out? At this point we don't know, but I would be very interested to know the actual specifics.
"I’ve pondered this for a long time too. I’m looking at the facts and trying to sort wheat from chaff the same as you are. I am just interpreting them into the simplest and most logical scenario I can, based on my own experience in these things. In my experience, the simplest and most logical explanation is usually the right one as well."
Fair enough Paul. You're certainly entitled to your interpretation, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. My apologies for my poor choice of words.
From my point of view the suggestion that he somehow didn't notice them given the nature of his work to be a bit farfetched. Possible yes, but certainly unlikely. And as I said above, his somehow getting them mixed up wouldn't change my basic opinion of the unlikeliness of his testimony being mistaken.
"Wouldn’t it have been great if, when the diary and the watch appeared, a lot of hot-headed and over zealous people hadn’t suddenly descended and started arguing amongst themselves? If only this could have been discussed in a civilised way back then without the needlessly bitter and personal recriminations between Feldman, Harris and Co. If only this could have been calmly debated at the time, then we would probably be a lot further on than we are now. It might have even been sorted out once and for all…..if only"
I agree wholeheartedly! It would certainly have been nice were it to have come together in a better fashion, but it unfortunately did not. Both sides felt very strongly they were in the right, and when people feel strongly enough about something they don't always behave well. It sucks.
Regards,
John |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Hi John, RJ, Chris
Thanks for some very interesting postings. I’m breaking my self-imposed rule of forgetting about the casebook for the weekend here, but what the hell, it’s getting interesting!
I shall be glad if and when my application for membership gets accepted, so my posts appear in order.
A few more thoughts/observations then.
Nannies, such as Nurse Parker would be highly unlikely to sever connections with a family they had worked for, for any length of time. I can think of three examples known to me personally, one of them in the family. Often there becomes a life long attachment to the family.
There is good evidence of this in the case of Nurse Parker/Over. Florrie wrote to her Mother from Walton gaol on 21st July 1889, suggesting that Nurse Parker, “…now married/Mrs John Over. 47 Timperon Street, Smithdown Road “Edge Hill”, be contacted to care for Bobo and Gladys whilst Nurse Yapp attended the hearing.
Florrie was clearly very much in touch with Nurse Parker still, and Edge Hill is in Liverpool I believe.
There is every reason to think that Nurse Parker continued to visit the children at Battlecrease right up until James’ death. I would be very surprised if she didn’t. You don’t just break an attachment to a child overnight. Not even a professional one. Nurse Parker probably knew Bobo better than his Mother.
I think there can be a danger of disregarding Feldman’s excellent research sometimes, due to his occasional lapses into fantasy, but there could still be a connection here, and I still think the JO initials are worth following up along those lines.
H 9/3. or H913 is most certainly a repairers mark, and dating from either 1903, or 1913 depending on which way you look at it. It is neatly done, as it would be by a jeweller, and is in a format I have seen many times. If it goes over the Maybrick scratches then that is the strongest bit of evidence you could possibly get that the Maybrick scratches are 90-100 years old at least.
I really must take issue with what is being said about Mr Dundas and his cleaning of the watch again.
When you dismantle and clean a fusee watch like this you would NOT inspect the inside of the case with a glass unless you were looking for something specific. Not in a million years. I can’t emphasise this point enough. Gold doesn’t really tarnish, and cleaning the inside of the case would be an extra expense, which the owner would have to ask for. It is NEVER a part of a normal service to a watch. A retail jeweller would not ask for anything that would increase the price and reduce his profit margins. Believe me I’ve been there!
Mr Dundas’ story still comes across to me as the words of a man cornered. By whom is not important. He had made certain statements and he was going to stick by them come hell or high water. I know I would.
Finally the superficial scratches.
If you read Turgoose he specifically states “superficial SURFACE scratches”. He is clearly differentiating them from the other scratches. The way I read the postings here it seems to me that these are interpreted as scratches that are clearly visible and made by a tool of some sort. SURFACE scratches on gold are the sort of scratches that aren’t visible to the naked eye, and show up merely as a dulling to the metal. These are the sort of “scratches” that rouge is used to remove.
I think that thought may have an effect on your reasoning, if I read them correctly.
Finally, I have unearthed a few excellent and detailed colour photos of a watch almost identical to the Maybrick watch in every way. It is a Liverpool gold pocket watch of 1853, and is the exact size and type of the Verity, but is not made by them. If it’s of interest and would help to understand things better, I will post them here.
Goodnight All
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 10:45 pm: | |
Paul,
"Nannies, such as Nurse Parker would be highly unlikely to sever connections with a family they had worked for, for any length of time."
As Nurse Parker was replaced because Florrie felt that she wasn't bonding with the child properly I tend to doubt the strength of the relationship, as well as questioning weather she had the option. A quote from Florrie's letter to her mother "Nurse is quite changed since baby's birth. Poor little mite. It gets neither petting nor coaxing when I am not with it and for every cross word nurse says to her. I cannot understand why she does not take to the child."
And considering that Florrie had no say in the children's upbringing at the time she wrote the letter of 21st July 1889, it sounds far more like she was pretending to be the mother she wasn't being allowed to be and seizing on a familiar name. The fact that she was aware that Emma Parker had since married is not evidence that she was "very much in touch" with her, or that her husband had any access to James supposed watch. When we let our son's "nanny" go for similar reasons, we certainly didn't encourage her to visit our son. Nor did we allow it when she wished it. The situation could of course have been quite different with the Maybricks, but there is no historical evidence to support that contention.
Personally, I think it's an incredible stretch at best. We need evidence, not Paul Feldman's rhetoric questions. "Could John Over have anything to do with the initials engraved on the back of the watch?" Doubtful, Mr. Feldman. Could you provide some evidence? (Doubtful.)
"H 9/3. or H913 is most certainly a repairers mark, and dating from either 1903, or 1913 depending on which way you look at it. It is neatly done, as it would be by a jeweler, and is in a format I have seen many times. If it goes over the Maybrick scratches then that is the strongest bit of evidence you could possibly get that the Maybrick scratches are 90-100 years old at least."
If it could be demonstrated by provenance that the mark was made by a jeweler in 1903 or 1913, AND the mark was over the Maybrick scratches, I would absolutely agree with you. But a person in 1993 (for example) could make the same marks, over the Maybrick marks they just made.
"I really must take issue with what is being said about Mr Dundas and his cleaning of the watch again."
You're certainly free to take issue, but your issue is with Tim Dundas I fear. He was willing to swear an affidavit that they weren't there. On the other hand, Ron Murphy went so far as to swear to "Having now seen the watch for the first time since selling it, I am almost certain that the markings were present when the watch was sold but they were not markings that i would have taken notice of." (My emphasis.) Not a ringing endorsement of confidence from Mr. Murphy.
"When you dismantle and clean a fusee watch like this you would NOT inspect the inside of the case with a glass unless you were looking for something specific. Not in a million years. I can’t emphasise this point enough."
As the workings of the watch are so close to the back I find that argument somewhat weak. He said he used the glass, and I have no reason to doubt him.
"Mr Dundas’ story still comes across to me as the words of a man cornered. By whom is not important. He had made certain statements and he was going to stick by them come hell or high water. I know I would."
That's highly speculative at best. I've seen no evidence that he was "cornered". If anyone was cornered I would suggest it was Murphy cornered by Paul. Here's a quote from Harrison's book describing Paul's approach to his investigation "In early June 1994, Paul Feldman had discovered a nest of hitherto unknown Maybricks in Petersborough. He was sure that these were the illegitimate descendants of James Maybrick. He began a ferocious crusade, relentlessly pursuing anyone in Liverpool who might unravel what he began to see as a gigantic cover-up. Men in parked cars watched and waited, there were mysterious phone calls. No one, thought Paul, was who they said they were. He even suspected a national security matter."
In any case, what you would do isn't necessarily indicative of what Mr. Dundas would do. Personally, if I made an incorrect statement, I would cheerfully admit it. (As I have in these forums many times.) However I would never suggest that anyone else would necessarily do the same. We have his testimony which we can choose to accept or discard. He imparts a certain level of confidence in his testimony that Mr. Murphy sorely lacks from his simple visual examination.
So at this point, I am certainly not going to discard his testimony, and will proceed with the knowledge that at least one person was willing to swear the non-existence of the scratches while observing them under magnification. I am completely aware of the fact that he could be incorrect or lying for some reason. I am also aware that there is no one willing to swear to the existence of the markings until Albert discovered them in the company of chums. That's the state of the evidence as I see it.
"Finally, I have unearthed a few excellent and detailed colour photos of a watch almost identical to the Maybrick watch in every way. It is a Liverpool gold pocket watch of 1853, and is the exact size and type of the Verity, but is not made by them. If it’s of interest and would help to understand things better, I will post them here."
I would indeed be very interested to see your pictures.
Regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 12:13 am: | |
Gentlemen---What do you make of the mark 20789? It was said by David Thompson (of the British Museum) to be 'certainly' a Jewler's mark. Is it a date, ie., 20 July, 1889? Or something else? RP |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:37 am: | |
Paul Stephen wrote:
H 9/3. or H913 is most certainly a repairers mark, and dating from either 1903, or 1913 depending on which way you look at it. It is neatly done, as it would be by a jeweller, and is in a format I have seen many times. If it goes over the Maybrick scratches then that is the strongest bit of evidence you could possibly get that the Maybrick scratches are 90-100 years old at least.
Just so that I can understand the significance of the format, and as the format seems to be in doubt, what format are you saying you've seen many times before? A letter followed by a date in some form? Or both the possible formats "M/Y" or "YYY"? (The second seems a bit unlikely to me, if as stated previously the concern was to preclude a premature complaint by the customer - why indicate the century?)
Perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that Shirley Harrison describes David Thompson, the superintendent of the watch and clock department of the British Museum, as pronouncing the 20789 to be certainly a repair mark, but:
Mr Thompson was puzzled about the numbers H 9/3 and 1275 which he thought could have been produced by the implement that made the other scratches... although it could have been a repair number.
On the superficial surface scratches, I do think you have a real problem if you're saying that they would have been polished out by jeweller's rouge, because we know that Murphy cleaned the watch in this way before selling it to Johnson. So the implication would be that the superficial scratch marks were made after that, which would be highly suspicious.
On whether we're just talking about microscopic scratch marks, though, I'm puzzled by this. In the photo in Shirley Harrison's book, there's the appearance of large-scale patterns of scratches, as well as a dark line above the hallmark. On top of that, the surface of the case doesn't look smooth, but almost dented in places.
Perhaps that photo is misleading. As everyone says that the scratches are extremely faint, I'd be very curious to know how they've been made visible in the photo. (One would hope they didn't go to the lengths of rubbing something black into the scratches to bring them out!)
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 7:34 am: | |
Hi John
Well I can see you’re going to stick with Mr Dundas come hell or high water, despite the fact that he got his watches mixed up and was describing what was patently not the Maybrick watch in his interview with Paul Feldman. I just wonder if you would think the same if that interview had been with someone else, someone other than Mr F?
This is a chap who claims to have had about 100 watches through his hands each week. Even allowing for an hour per watch, and a Victorian pocket watch would need rather more than that for a service, what he describes is an impossibility. Perhaps he employs a small workforce, in which case I wonder if he handled the Maybrick watch himself at all! Either way, he must be memory man to recall this one watch out of all the thousands that went before or after.
He has no written record of having repaired it either…! I have had to keep my repair records and accounts for a number of years. The Inland revenue insist on it!
At the speed this chap must work he isn’t going to be messing around trying to make out vague and indistinct scratches in the back of a watch. Why would you need to use a glass on them anyway? If you’re going to try and buff them out, you only have to do this sufficiently well to make them invisible, or less obvious, to the naked eye.
I’m sorry, but Mr Dundas’ “testimony” is seriously flawed. When he claimed later not to have seen the scratches, he was shown a small black and white photograph I believe. The same one we have been looking at maybe? The one where it’s difficult to make out what is what? Did he have a photograph which showed the dial or just the insides? If a clearer photograph of the watch from the front exists, where is it? It’s not in any of the books.
I’m sorry, but Mr Dundas’ statements just don’t hold up. Take his dodgy “testimony” out of the equation and the rest of the tale fits together quite well. I know you don’t agree with me here John, but I just can’t understand why . Pick a jeweller of your own choice and ask him if he EVER uses a glass to inspect the random initials and markings in the back of a watch he has in for repair. I know what his answer will be!
Anyhow, I don’t wish to continue to flog a dead horse, and I promise I shan’t mention it again, but I really think you may find that line of enquiry the most productive.
Chris
I’m sorry Chris, if the notion that these scratches are more than a few decades old doesn’t fit your preconceived notion that they can’t be, but there it is.
Repair marks in both clocks and watches would serve no real purpose, if not to make some record of the date they were put there. As far as I can see, there has never been any serious research done on this, and it would probably be impossible anyway, as each watch or clockmaker would use his own variation.
I have seen probably hundreds of these, and the numbers can always be interpreted as a date. Either month followed by year, or day, month, year.
In this case, H is probably the repairers initial, and 9/3 would be September 1903. The other mark is more obvious, and is just a date. It may have had a related initial at one time, but it’s not there now.
Where is the 20789? I can’t see that one, although, clearly it’s a date too. If you want to find out more about repair marks in watches you need to talk to repairers who have experience in older watches and who has an interest in such things, as he will know a bit about it, rather than a museum curator who probably won’t.
The photograph of the scratches looks enhanced to me. Photographed with side light and enhanced contrast, scratches can show up like they do here. You would not be able to get a black pigment to stick in such faint scratches. I agree with you about the dents. These gold cases are paper thin, and the scratches seem to have been very clumsily done, and appear to have pushed the metal through at one point. It would be interesting to see the other side of the inner back.
It’s possible I suppose that our genius faker, also studied the use of 19th century repairers marks and then faked his own on top of the Maybrick scratches just to cover all angles. I’m hoping to win the lottery next weekend too…
Bye for now...
Paul
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Dear All
Here we are then. Until we get some good quality photos of the Maybrick watch, this is the next best thing. It will give some idea of what goes on with the case etc.
Regards
Paul  |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
Paul,
"Well I can see you’re going to stick with Mr Dundas come hell or high water, despite the fact that he got his watches mixed up and was describing what was patently not the Maybrick watch in his interview with Paul Feldman. I just wonder if you would think the same if that interview had been with someone else, someone other than Mr F?"
No. I'm simply not going to discard it out of hand. The "fact" that he got his watches mixed up in his interview with Feldman is meaningless as far as I am concerned for the reasons I described above. You can choose to agree or disagree, that's up to you. (And yes, I would have the same opinion had it been someone other than Mr. F.)
"I’m sorry, but Mr Dundas’ statements just don’t hold up. Take his dodgy “testimony” out of the equation and the rest of the tale fits together quite well. I know you don’t agree with me here John, but I just can’t understand why . Pick a jeweller of your own choice and ask him if he EVER uses a glass to inspect the random initials and markings in the back of a watch he has in for repair. I know what his answer will be!"
The reason I don't agree with you Paul, is that you're not suggesting he was mistaken, but that he was actually lying. And I have no reason to believe that the man is a liar at the moment. He didn't have to make a statement. He certainly didn't need to swear an affidavit. And if his testimony is so flawed and "dodgy" that anyone who works in the trade would spot his apparently obvious lies, why would he do so?
Not everyone works in the same fashion Paul, and your insistence that his testimony is incorrect, or a lie is simply not supported factually at the moment and is simply your opinion.
And as I said before, I am not "sticking" with Mr. Dundas. (I'd really appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth.) For the record, what I said was:
"So at this point, I am certainly not going to discard his testimony, and will proceed with the knowledge that at least one person was willing to swear the non-existence of the scratches while observing them under magnification. I am completely aware of the fact that he could be incorrect or lying for some reason. I am also aware that there is no one willing to swear to the existence of the markings until Albert discovered them in the company of chums. That's the state of the evidence as I see it."
Thanks for the picture of the watch, they're certainly interesting and quite beautiful.
Regards,
John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 9:13 am: | |
Paul,
Ya know, your comment to Chris, "I’m sorry Chris, if the notion that these scratches are more than a few decades old doesn’t fit your preconceived notion that they can’t be, but there it is." was uncalled for in my opinion.
Chris is doing his research, providing valuable information to the board, and asking good questions. He seems to be genuinely trying to understand the issues here. What's the problem with that?
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 805
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Hi John,
I don’t think Dr. Turgoose was basing his assessment of the order in which the scratches were made on the degree of “wearing”. It is clear from his report that magnification showed that the ‘9/3’ [sic] was ‘written’ after the horizontal line of the ‘J’ in ‘I am Jack’ because these two markings crossed. They do indeed cross, John – at least in the colour photo I have in front of me here that Keith Skinner recently sent me. There is no obvious cross bar at the top of the ‘J’, but the bottom tail goes off to the left then up and loops back on itself and ends up going back across the downstroke. The ‘9’ appears almost entirely within the resulting loop of the ‘J’, but the downstroke of the ‘9’ does cross the bottom of the ‘J’ loop almost at right angles. Also, the lower half of the vertical downstroke of the ‘J’ divides the ‘9’ and the ‘3’, and I can’t see another downstroke that would give either ‘9/3’ or ‘913’, but the gaps look too big to be ‘H 93’. It looks more like ‘H 9 3’ to me, but I could of course be wrong.
Do think again of Paul’s two lines made in sand by a finger – it is going to be pretty obvious which was made first.
Turgoose also reports that ‘I am Jack’ and ‘Maybrick’ ‘are the earliest visible markings. All others overlay these where crossing does occur’. He also stated that all the random superficial scratches go across the ‘engravings’ and are therefore later.
What do you mean, when you write: ‘Then how do we explain all of the incidental scratching with “wearing” between them?’?
Turgoose states that if all the engravings were made recently they would have required intermediate polishing or artificial wearing stages, merely indicating to me that all the deliberate markings – not the incidental or superficial scratches – were made with a variety of tools, and that each would need to have been made and then polished or artificially aged, before the next one was made and so on. The overlaying of new marks on previously made marks seems to be of critical importance here.
It does appear to me that whoever put the copperplate H followed by the 9/3 in the watch, if it wasn’t the same person who scratched the ‘I am Jack’ there, either didn’t take any notice of the earlier markings, or saw them and tried to polish them out - in Chris P’s words – ‘using something pretty abrasive’. 
Curiouser and curiouser.
And how did I guess that someone would suggest the fancy H and the 9/3 were put on over the other scratches by the hoaxer, in the hope of fooling everyone into believing a genuine early repair mark was put in after the ripper ones. This hoaxer just gets smarter, better informed and more into subtle complexities by the minute.
Hi Chris P,
I don’t know why Dr. Wild was given the information that the watch surface had been polished some six to ten years previous to his examination. Maybe this information was given to Albert by the Murphys, or maybe Albert got his wires crossed about what the Murphys did and when.
Or are you suggesting Albert deliberately misled the second of two independent experts he himself commissioned to test the watch, after the first had confirmed for him that, with certain qualifications, the scratches ‘are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer’?
I would have found it more ‘disturbing’ had Dr. Wild merely concluded that the Maybrick engravings were made ‘before the watch surface was polished’ ie at least six years previously.
He didn’t. Neither did Dr. Turgoose afore him. Dr. Wild’s conclusions were given in terms of ‘several tens of years’, so the information given to him could hardly have made the difference between an ‘old’ or a ‘recent’ (as in less than six years old) verdict.
Hi Paul,
Most worrying about Dundas’ 1996 testimony is his error in the timing (sorry) he gave for Murphy contacting him to ask if he had seen any marks relating to JtR in the watch in question. Dundas thought it was a lady’s watch (it now seems that it wasn’t) and said he had serviced it in 1992 and thought he had fitted a spring and polished the case. He said that ‘Mr. Stewart’ (referring to Murphy) contacted him ‘a month or so later’, which, had this been the case, might have given Dundas some chance of remembering exactly which watch Murphy was enquiring about. But in reality a whole year must have passed before Dundas was asked about any ripper marks. So I have no idea how he was able to remember a lack of specific scratch marks in that specific watch so long afterwards.
John, the difference with Murphy is that Albert went back repeatedly to the shop with the watch (and with his brother Robbie) to ask what the Murphys knew about its history, and there was a positive recollection of seeing scratches in this particular watch that Murphy had tried to polish out before selling it on to Albert. So Murphy had three tangible elements to aid his memory a year after the event – the physical watch, its purchaser, and the positive memory of having polished out some scratches. Dundas had nothing but a photograph to aid his negative memory - of not seeing anything at all. Assuming Paul is correct about the servicer not needing to look closely at the 'secret' surface, Dundas needn't have been lying about not seeing any scratches that would have indicated something more than the most superficial variety. He just didn't have occasion to inspect this surface that closely, or perhaps it wasn't explained to him clearly enough which surface was being discussed.
Paul, perhaps you could comment on the fact that the Murphys were so concerned by the Johnsons’ questions about where the watch had come from that they offered to buy it back. How unusual would that be? Does it indicate that they were worried about something? And why would they be, if they’d had it for some years, as they claimed, and only knew that a stranger had originally sold it to Mrs. Murphy’s father?
Incidentally, over the weekend I dug out my own 18 carat gold Victorian pendant watch that I found among my late parents’ possessions, and which I assume belonged to my father’s mother or grandmother. The former was born in 1877 and the latter died in the summer of 1888. It has a very beautiful and ornate back cover and is quite tiny compared with Albert’s pocket watch. Mine has a tiny key attached with string and hubby got it going for me over the weekend. He also showed me how it opened to reveal the workings and the ‘secret’ surface – just like Albert’s. This surface has superficial scratches that can be seen under a magnifying glass, and we also saw what appear to be four extremely small and faint letters or numbers on the circumference.
Thanks Paul, for all the info about repairer’s date marks etc.
Hi RJ,
I seem to remember Shirley explaining something about an administrative muddle over the test funding on the boards some time ago. I’m not certain, off the top of my head, of all the details. Albert did voluntarily commission and pay for Dr. Wild’s examination, which I suppose is what really matters. But I believe Shirley then decided to cover the cost out of her own research budget, which seems to have resulted in two payments reaching Bristol for the same test, one of which was eventually returned, presumably Albert’s since Shirley says this second test was at her expense.
I don’t know about the 20789 – I can’t find this series of numbers on any of the photos I have in front of me. There is a clear maker’s number – 1286 – on the surface of the workings, which hubby thought might be connected with the 1275 on the ‘secret’ surface - related component parts of manufacture, or something of that sort.
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
Turgoose states that if all the engravings were made recently they would have required intermediate polishing or artificial wearing stages, merely indicating to me that all the deliberate markings – not the incidental or superficial scratches – were made with a variety of tools, and that each would need to have been made and then polished or artificially aged, before the next one was made and so on. The overlaying of new marks on previously made marks seems to be of critical importance here.
Thank you for clarifying that. Obviously I (and others) have been barking up completely the wrong tree in thinking that Turgoose was saying that the superficial scratches were made by a variety of tools.
In my own defence, all the interesting detail about different tools being used to make the scratches is represented in Shirley Harrison's book by "..."
It is a bit difficult to discuss Turgoose's findings sensibly without seeing the text. You mentioned previously that there might be copyright difficulties in posting the text here. Do you know who holds the copyright - the authors, Albert Johnson, or Shirley Harrison?
Incidentally, I'm still not clear why a "wearing" layer would be necessary between the different initials being scratched. How could Turgoose know this? And wouldn't this intermediate wear actually an argument against all the initials, the "Jack" and the "Maybrick" all being scratched by the same person?
And how did I guess that someone would suggest the fancy H and the 9/3 were put on over the other scratches by the hoaxer, in the hope of fooling everyone into believing a genuine early repair mark was put in after the ripper ones. This hoaxer just gets smarter, better informed and more into subtle complexities by the minute.
I'd be reluctant to suggest that myself. But there is some real doubt whether that is a repair mark. After all, hasn't the same mark been put forward by the Maybrickites as a code indicating one of the "missing" victims (who would otherwise appear in the diary but not on the watch)?
Or are you suggesting Albert deliberately misled the second of two independent experts he himself commissioned to test the watch, after the first had confirmed for him that, with certain qualifications, the scratches ‘are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer’?
I would have found it more ‘disturbing’ had Dr. Wild merely concluded that the Maybrick engravings were made ‘before the watch surface was polished’ ie at least six years previously.
He didn’t. Neither did Dr. Turgoose afore him. Dr. Wild’s conclusions were given in terms of ‘several tens of years’, so the information given to him could hardly have made the difference between an ‘old’ or a ‘recent’ (as in less than six years old) verdict.
Hmmm. I think if you read that excerpt from Wild's report (the final draft), you'll see that he is making a tentative statement about the scratches being older than ten years, on the basis of the 6-10-year information. Of course, I agree that logically he should have said older than 6 years, but he didn't.
And yes, I do find something very disturbing here, though I have no way of knowing who gave the incorrect information to Wild. (I'm certainly not going to be drawn into making allegations against anyone in particular, but I suggest "Trust no one" would be a good motto in general while dealing with these murky affairs.)
It's difficult to tell without seeing the full report how much Wild might have been influenced by it, but even if it was an innocent blunder, a scrupulous author should have made it clear that Wild had partly been influenced by inaccurate information.
As a minor aside, should we draw any conclusion about the impossibility of really dating these scratches from the fact that Wild observed no contradiction between the 6-10 years date he had been given, and the 18 months or so since the watch had actually been cleaned?
I take it from what you say that there's no mention of this 6-10 years cleaning in Turgoose's report?
Dundas thought it was a lady’s watch (it now seems that it wasn’t) ...
Although perhaps not crucial, maybe this is worth clarifying if it's going to be used to cast doubt on Dundas's reliability.
I've read Paul Stephen's comments with interest, but after all he hasn't had the benefit of seeing the watch, and others apart from Dundas have come to the same conclusion.
Harrison describes Stanley Dangar as a "watch expert" and his report as a "very detailed and useful professional description", and says he believed it was a lady's watch.
My impression of the discussion on the old boards was that it was accepted as a lady's watch, with no dissent from the "pro-Maybrick" side.
Do you have other evidence that it was really a man's watch?
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
Hi Caz, John ,Chris and anyone else I’d missed.
John.
It is not my intention to upset anyone here. If I have, I apologise unreservedly, but I can’t seem to say anything right can I?
If I have upset Chris P, then no doubt he will tell me so in bold type quite soon, but as Chris said to me only a couple of days ago, that the scratches in the watch couldn’t be a few decades old because the diary is so obviously a fake due to textual inaccuracies, I think that is sure evidence of preconceived notions about the watches provenance don’t you?
Perhaps I’m not explaining myself too well, but Caz seems to have picked up on what I’m saying here. I’m not trying to be a know all, but I’m clearly seeing things differently to you chaps, and I think it just maybe because I’ve actually had a heck of a lot of first hand experience at all of this. I’m no metallurgist, but when you’ve been working in metal all your life you get a feel for whats right and wrong about these blessed scratches.
Lets just hope for more tests one day, because theres so much suspicion around the present ones, I can’t see them ever resolving anything here.
Caz
I shall reply to you properly tomorrow. My head hurts a bit now…!
Best wishes and warm regards to all,
Paul
P.S. Have I bu**ered up the casebook with those photos? My screen comes out a mile wide now!
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Caz,
"I don’t think Dr. Turgoose was basing his assessment of the order in which the scratches were made on the degree of “wearing”. It is clear from his report that magnification showed that the ‘9/3’ [sic] was ‘written’ after the horizontal line of the ‘J’ in ‘I am Jack’ because these two markings crossed. They do indeed cross, John – at least in the colour photo I have in front of me here that Keith Skinner recently sent me."
Thanks for that clarification Caz, it's wasn't apparent from the pictures I have that that was the case.
"Turgoose states that if all the engravings were made recently they would have required intermediate polishing or artificial wearing stages, merely indicating to me that all the deliberate markings – not the incidental or superficial scratches – were made with a variety of tools, and that each would need to have been made and then polished or artificially aged, before the next one was made and so on. The overlaying of new marks on previously made marks seems to be of critical importance here."
The overlaying of marks is of critical importance, as are the incidental scratches in my opinion. (They're the only ones that have been brought up in the printed books to date.) We really need some clarity on the order that the scratches were made, as well as what stages the "weathering" occured.
"Turgoose also reports that ‘I am Jack’ and ‘Maybrick’ ‘are the earliest visible markings. All others overlay these where crossing does occur’. He also stated that all the random superficial scratches go across the ‘engravings’ and are therefore later."
That is VERY interesting. Especially considering that he didn't take the "Jack" name until the Dear Boss letter which suggests that he wouldn't have been using it from the very start.
"John, the difference with Murphy is that Albert went back repeatedly to the shop with the watch (and with his brother Robbie) to ask what the Murphys knew about its history, and there was a positive recollection of seeing scratches in this particular watch that Murphy had tried to polish out before selling it on to Albert. So Murphy had three tangible elements to aid his memory a year after the event – the physical watch, its purchaser, and the positive memory of having polished out some scratches. Dundas had nothing but a photograph to aid his negative memory - of not seeing anything at all."
Yes, He was shown a picture of the watch. Of a type he apparently found memorable. From Feldman's book "Oh, yes, I would know it if I saw it. Yes, because there are not many Veritys about. It is quite an unusual make, so there are not many about." He says he saw the surface under magnification. He swore an affidavit to that effect. I think it's pretty straight forward.
As I've said twice now, "At this point, I am certainly not going to discard his testimony, and will proceed with the knowledge that at least one person was willing to swear the non-existence of the scratches while observing them under magnification. I am completely aware of the fact that he could be incorrect or lying for some reason." That doesn't mean I am accepting it as fact, but simply don't think that we can write it off at the moment based on speculation.
And let's not forget when initially contacted by Paul Feldman, Mr. Murphy apparently couldn't describe the watch accurately either.
Regards,
John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
Paul,
I dunno Paul, I'm probably just overly sensitive because it seems like we're actually get some good new material here and I'd hate for it to fall back into the old squabbling.
"Lets just hope for more tests one day, because theres so much suspicion around the present ones, I can’t see them ever resolving anything here."
It's quite possible they could help resolve quite a few questions were they made publicly available. Some of the stuff Caz is posting is quite a bit stronger than the stuff in Shirley or Paul's books.
We've been given snippets only, and there's been WAY too much attention given to the "particle" which wasn't particularly impressive to the metallurgist I spoke to.
I doubt they would completely answer all of the questions, given that Turgoose said they could be recent and aged. But we could get a much clearer picture of what would have been required and how difficult it would actually have been.
Regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Paul Stephen
No, you haven't upset me, but I wouldn't see my attitude as a "preconceived notion". Being realistic, most people are not going to view the watch in isolation from the diary, and I think it's quite right that they shouldn't.
I don't believe the diary is genuine - I think there's string evidence against its genuineness. Therefore I think it's reasonable to expect very strong evidence before I'm willing to accept that the scratches are decades old.
The evidence that's been put forward in favour of the scratches being at least older than the purchase of the watch by Albert Johnson are:
(1) Turgoose's opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years and possibly much longer. But (as extracted by Harrison) this rests mainly on the fact that the superficial scratches were made later than the Maybrick scratches, and Turgoose admits all the scratches could have been prodcued recently.
(2) Wild's opinion that provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least of several tens of years age. This is presumably based on the presence of slivers of brass, "blackened with age" (though Caroline Morris doesn't find that description in the report). If there's a possibility that some agent has been applied to age the metal artificially, that's a pretty big proviso; nor does Wild (as extracted by Harrison) consider the alternative possibilities that have been suggested - that the brass fragments came from a corroded engraving tool, or that they were accidentally deposited while ageing the surface.
(3) Murphy's memory of some scratches being on the surface. Not definite whether they were the same scratches, and contradicted by Dundas.
(4) And now we have the finding that "H 9/3" (or "H 9 3" or whatever) is engraved top of the "J" of "I am Jack".
I'd like to know more about (4), but the uncertainties would have to be disposed of in an extremely convincing manner before it would convince me that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper - because to all intents and purposes, that's what it would amount to!
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
Hi Chris P, John and all.
Glad we’re all still on speaking terms, and I shall try to go easier on the irony in future.
There’s a website called James as Jack, which I’ve had a look at, and if I really wanted to just have people go along with me all the way, that’s where I’d be. I don’t, so you may have to put up with me a while longer if I’m allowed.
I am in full agreement on the need for more info. about the tests, and I wholeheartedly endorse the view that the corroded brass particle has had it’s importance inflated somewhat, as a brass tool for making the scratches still seems the most unlikely of implements for a twentieth century faker to use.
As for me, I’ll deal with one thing at a time, and if the evidence should eventually prove the scratches to be 30 years old say, then I will worry about it’s implications later. If they turn out to be a dozen years old on the other hand, I shall shake the faker by the hand. (If he ever comes forward, as he’s really fooled me).
A few further thoughts then:
If this really were Maybrick’s watch, then it would have to be his Sunday best. You didn’t go traipsing through a cotton plantation wearing a watch like this. It’s also of a size known as a “dress watch”, as I’ve previously suggested. Owning such a watch with it’s fancy gold chain and seal was your Victorian businessman’s equivalent of owning a Ferrari. It was status.
Why on Earth didn’t our forger buy a period SILVER everyday example for about fifty quid and put his scratches on that? It would be just as believable as Maybrick’s watch, and there would be thousands to choose from, most of which would have had a blank cartouche ready to take a nice fake JM?
It’s as puzzling as faking a diary in an old scrapbook.
Regards to all
Paul |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 11:32 pm: | |
The '20789' is not visible in the photographs because it is scratched on the rim of the watch's inside back cover.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
