|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 06 February 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through 06 February 2002
Author: Mark List
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 02:53 pm |        | Interesting how we all still find it earlier to throw the watch away but debate over the Diary 
Yet, have we even begun to think of the watch as anything more than a modern "bad" fake. Is this because we can't read and dissect the watch like we can the diary, so our interest and thus belief of it's importance quickly fades?
I find this upsetting.
Now, I am by no means stating that I believe the watch to be genuine, but what I am suggesting is that if the watch is older that the diary, what does it tell us?
After all is said and done, one question remains:
Why James Maybrick?
Why not someone else?
I guess my point (and question) is:
We never knew who the Ripper was. Why? because he was a "no one." Out of the spotlight. The police were running one way, while Jack was running the other. He eluded detection, because no one was looking for "him" they were looking for the Ripper.
So it would make sense, to me, that having a nobody as the Ripper is much more feasible than other theories, Royal or Mad Jew (not that I discount them)
Yes, of course, there are huge problems with the Diary, I don't disagree with that, but I do wonder this:
If the Watch is older than the "accepted" information date (1987) Then it's older than the Diary. This the point of vagueness on the part of the person who scratched the watch.
all you have is Maybrick's name, the five canonical victims initials and "I am Jack"
That leaves a lot open.
But what does that say to us?
Why Maybrick? Why finger him?
It just gets me thinking....
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 07:07 am | | Indeed Mark - and they can't touch you for thinking - yet!
But others don't want to think about the watch too much - it gives them a headache.
What if the two independent metallurgy specialists weren't treading on thin ice, charging people for opinions no one is qualified to offer? What if they really could tell that those scratches were most likely not made post-1992 by an amateur?
But, of course, I'm talking nonsense. Melvin Harris would be faced with an irresistible force, in the form of a watch, doctored pre-1987, meeting his immovable object, in the shape of the post-1987 scrapbook, and that would never do - the comfort factor would be missing. Something's gotta give, as they say. And in this case it's the watch - but a small sacrifice for the sake of everyone's comfort and sanity.
I, on the other hand, thrive on impossible-looking mysteries. How can the watch markings be old, while the diary is modern? Answer: it's an impossibility. Great!! Just my cup of tea. So it looks like both artefacts will keep ticking over for a while yet.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 09:31 pm | | Hello all,
I've been looking into the watch a bit of late and I'm fairly sure I understand how it could have been made, and I have a few ideas as to where the (watch) forger picked up the knowledge needed.
It's of limited value because there's no way to prove it WAS done this way of course. :-) But I think it does account for the scientific findings, and doesn't require more than a few basic facts to work out. I'll type it all up when I get a chance anyway in case anyone is interested.
But in the meantime, I was wondering if anyone had any opinion whether or not the diary and watch were made by the same party, or if the watch was simply an opportunistic "add-on" by another party.
I've waffled over the years, but I guess my gut instinct is that they are seperate productions. The diary never mentions the watch. The watch doesn't reflect the "manchester murders", only the cannonicals. I can't really think of a good reason to link the two together. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
John Hacker |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 04:06 am | | John,
A long shot I know,but suppose the watch was the first item in the hoax.That whoever thought up the scheme believed the watch itself,with the initials,was enough.
When that task was finished,it was decided that the watch alone was insufficient,that a confession was needed hence the thoughts of a written record first, with the watch to follow.
You did ask for opinions.
H.Mann. |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 08:03 am | | Harry,
Thanks for your thoughts! That's an idea that had not occurred to me. It's certainly possible, however, I would tend to do doubt it for a couple of reasons.
A watch (Even JtR's watch) isn't going to bring the kind of money or attention that the "diary" would. With a watch there's no book or movie rights most likely. And there's not as much "handiwork" for the public to appreciate if it's ego that drives our forger. It's harder (for me) to see a motive for the forger with a watch.
If the watch did come first and the diary was meant to support it I would have thought the diary author would link the watch to the diary via the text. Unless of course they didn't want a direct link in case the watch was "caught out". Sigh. There's always more questions :-)
It's certainly something to think about.
Many thanks!
John Hacker |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 11:15 am | | Hi, John and Harry:
Thanks for your thoughts. The "watch came first" idea appears to me a thought that was bandied about before and after the Bournemouth UK convention September 28-October 1, 2001. Of course it might not have happened that way but if we are to assume that Albert Johnson is on the level and the scientific findings are correct that the metal embedded in the bottom of the scratches might date back to 1888, this leaves open the idea that the watch may have preceded the Diary since all the signs are that the Diary is a more modern production of, say, 1987-1992.
As for whether the watch and Diary were created by different people, my two cents is that, whichever came first, the two items are separate productions. As you say, the fact that the initials in the watch appear to refer only to the five canonical murders might imply a different authorship.
My take on those scratches is that they look as if they were done by different people and not one person since the style of lettering varies markedly to my eye. The initials might just be repairers' marks that either just coincidentally appear to match the initials of the five victims or are pre-existing marks that have been modified perhaps to resemble the victims' initials. If the latter did indeed happen, I might be more inclined to think the watch is a copycat-like creation done on the back of the Diary.
All the best
Chris |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 11:36 am | | Chris,
Thanks for you thoughts regarding the scratches. I have never seen a clear enough picture of the scratches to get any impressions regarding the lettering. Is there any picture that shows the scratches clearly enough to make them out?
Personally, I'm fairly sure that the scratches are not old. The effect described by the scientists could be fairly easily achieved in a short time at the kitchen table. I've done a few simple experiments and I'm pretty sure I could duplicate it. Anyone have a gold watch they don't neeed? :-)
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 12:57 pm | | I have always thought that the Watch came first, and then the Diary (whether both by the same party I can't say).
I know that everyone have their opinion on science and it's accuracy on this watch and diary thing; however, there's no need to think that JUST becasue the watch came first (years before the diary showed up- according to the tests) doesn't mean that Maybrick was the Ripper, it simply means that it was made (hoax or not) some time ago.
Personally I think that the Watch came first. By whom and for what purpose, I can't and won't speculate to say. But I believe that science has been a good friend to the detective world in solving crimes, so I don't see why, even in this quite controversial issue, it should questioned so heavily.
Cheers,
Mark
p.s.
I think that the Watch should be tested again by a GROUP of scientists, not one and then another. A test by a group would help eliminate mistakes and confusion, and the findings would hold up stronger. |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 01:27 pm | | Hiya Mark,
I'm not disputing the value of science. Oh no. Science is indeed a good thing.
Unfortunately there really isn't any "scientific" way to date scratches. What it comes down to if you read the reports is that they "look old". As well they should. It's my opinion that they were made to look old. And I hope to use science to explain how it could have been done. :-)
I would certainly like to see more scientific testing done, but I'd like to see them start with the diary itself. The watch reports are consistant with each other, but the diary/ink mess is much more of a tangle.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 01:50 pm | | Hi, John and Mark:
I also agree that scientific tests are a good thing. However, I firmly believe that if science is to be relied on to give a date or some other finding, there is a need to challenge and redo those scientific tests whenever there is any doubt that the initial results could be wrong.
By the way, in my previous post, I should have stated that I believe there may have been a thought during and following the Bournemouth meeting that the Diary may be older than the watch based on Albert Johnson's appearance at the conference and the good impression that he made. Personally, as I have discussed with Caz, whether Albert is a genuine and honest gentleman does not change my opinion that the Diary and watch are fakes and that Maybrick was not the Ripper.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 03:43 pm | | I know that dating "scratches" doesn't; however, it is possible to the bits of brass or whatever it was that was used to make the scratches.
I don't think that Diary or the watch being fake "proves" maybrick wasn't the Ripper nor doesn't proving the watch old prove that he was.
I think that there is a consensus, to some degree, that the Diary is a forgery.
My main question is WHEN and by WHO and WHY.
I think that the Watch may has something to do with the Diary being written, but I don't knkow how. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:53 pm | | ...since all the signs are that the Diary is a more modern production of, say, 1987-1992.
Sorry Chris, I can't let you get away with that. There are, of course, no such signs, but as you have - thus far - been preaching to the converted you are excused. Just watch your step in future.
The initials might just be repairers' marks that either just coincidentally appear to match the initials of the five victims ...
Seriously? Match the five victims' initials ...what, by accident? All that and 'I am Jack'?
You can slag the scientific tests that have been done on the diary off, but you cannot dispute that those scratches are old.
James wore that watch. James wrote the diary.
Enjoy
Peter. |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:58 pm | | Chris,
I don't really have an opion on Albert Johnson as of yet. It's certainly concievable that the scratches were made without his knowledge.
Mark,
Yes, I know of the brass particles. Not a problem. :-)
Peter,
"You can slag the scientific tests that have been done on the diary off, but you cannot dispute that those scratches are old."
Ah but Peter my friend, I can and do dispute it. (Lecture's on what can be disputed from the guy who put's MJK's breasts on the table. That's pretty funny.)
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 01:44 am | | Hi Peter:
James Maybrick wore a ladies' watch with someone else's initials ("JO") engraved on the cover????
Pull the other one, Peter.
Chris |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 04:18 am | | John,all,
I Agree with your response,and as I said it is a long shot.
All I can add is that perhaps the watch idea was just a simple hoax to begin with,with no thought of making money.That came later,perhaps after some discussion with others,with the idea of a confession being introduced.
By whom,or with whom,I haven't the faintest suspicion.
H.Mann. |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 01:54 pm | | I haven't the faintest suspicion.
Harry, I apologise for borrowing that line from you, but it quite clearly sums up everyone who has been discussing the Maybrick watch. I haven't seen so much speculation going on since M.F. tried to fit up David Cohen for the ripper murders.
You have got nothing against the watch, nothing. Just stating that you dispute the scientific tests done on the watch is not sufficient to convince me or any other serious researcher that the watch is a fake.
For some reason you back off from accusing A.J. of forgery, but think nothing of slating Anne and Mike's characters.
John (Hacker)
You say:
"Ah but Peter my friend, I can and do dispute it. (Lecture's on what can be disputed from the guy who put's MJK's breasts on the table. That's pretty funny".)
Let me tell you something that's even funnier: A guy who puts one of these things - ' - between the t and the s in "puts".
Just to put the record straight, it wasn't me that put MJK's breasts on the table, it was James Maybrick. Or should that be Jame's, John? Ho-hum.
And now the best argument you have for suggesting that the scratches in the watch even could be a forgery is that it is a ladies watch? Wow! I wonder which of the whores he stole that off then? Maybe one of the Manchester victims ...
Thanks, Chris, for opening up a completely new line of investigation. 
Peter.
P.s. Robbie returns to Anfield tomorrow (I think). Liverpool v Leeds. 11-8 on Robbie scoring at any time during the match. Good luck, it's a 'must win' for Leeds. |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 02:35 pm | | Hello all,
Just a quick post as I am at work. I'm without power at my house due to the happy ice storm and don't expect it back anytime soon, so it seems likely that I will not get to do any further posting for a couple of days. I will try to get the basic outline of my watch ideas on line sometime late this weekend though I certainly can't promise anything given the power situation.
If I don't get back, have a nice weekend all.
Peter,
"And now the best argument you have for suggesting that the scratches in the watch even could be a forgery is that it is a ladies watch? Wow! I wonder which of the whores he stole that off then? Maybe one of the Manchester victims ..."
Good ole Peter. When in doubt, make something up. Yes, I'm sure all the whores carried gold watches. Right in their golden purses next to their bags of Faberge Eggs and the and the Crown Jewels. Whatever, Peter. If you ever return to planet Earth drop me a line.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 04:19 pm | | | Err ...it was a joke. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 03:45 am | | Peter,
I haven't accused anyone by name or inference.The idea could have begun with anyone,at anytime prior to the watches appearance.Don,t apologise it,s a sign of weakness.(who said that,John Wayne I think).
I haven,t slated Anne or Mikes character,they have done a pretty good job of that themselves.What I have inferred is that there is a suspicion of forgery,what you haven,t done is allay that suspicion.
You a serious researcher?.Come on Peter tell us another police yarn.You were in the police weren,t you.?.What branch?.Keystone cops. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 09:15 am | | Aaah my good friend Harry.
O.k. not an apology this time, just an explanation. You appear to believe my invective was levelled at you. It wasn't. I tend to write generally to all the detractors and, when you consider that I am just about the only person in here who believes the diary and watch are genuine, that means just about everyone else.
I agree with you about apologising, it's not something I make a habit of. But where I come from it's not seen as a sign of weakness, just a sign of good manners.
And so to my time in the police! Believe it or not I had to sign the official secrets act and, although I don't feel particularly bound by it now, the things I could tell you would make your hair curl. Let me just say that whatever happens in this country regarding politics is pretty much preordained and the main parties really do, as the old saying goes, p*ss in the same pot. Without giving too much away it is a case of one law for us and another for them.
One thing I can tell you is that, up until the time of his arrest a couple of years ago, George Michael used to vigorously deny that he was a homosexual - even when challenged by Boy George to 'come out of the closet'. I can tell you that every single police officer who ever served at Watford Central knew that old George (Michael, not Boy) was batting for the other side because he was regularly caught in places where 'gentlemen' would meet to indulge in lewd behaviour.
And it really stuck in my throat that when he eventually got caught out for the hypocrite he is he tried to make out that it was a case of victimisation by the press. Oh, don't make me laugh. Should that be 'O, don't make me laugh'.
I fear my other stories of time in the old bill would be more suited to space on another board.
Regards
Peter |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 07:48 pm | | | Hi Peter,Do you remember the case of the Chief Constable of Surrey. He was working at Surrey Police HQ, Mount Browne, Guidford.He was charged with sexual offences againest female members of staff. One person well known to me was a police Inspector and he was working at Mount Browne also.About three months before he was due to retire they hit him with the same accusations againest female staff.I think he retired early because of this situation.He was heard to say that if he opened his mouth about all that he knew ( including the Guildford 4)he could cause a lot of trouble.People talk about bent police officers and how bad they are. Any police officer who has information about another officer being bent or fitting up a suspect and ignores it and does nothing is just as bad as a bent copper.One of the reasons why it came on top in this country was because innocent people without records were being fitted up.Before that no one gave a shi* about the criminals who were being fitted up. I can remember that if you walked into a court and stated that the police in the case had lied or had fitted you up with evidence the judge would take a very dim view and possibly give you extra time. |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 03:40 am | | Peter,
I answered because you used my name.Don't take things to heart so much.I quite like the way you put your case,but I think your police experience would tend to lead you to have at least a faint suspicion that all concerning the watch and diary is not above board.
There is no continuity of ownership from the person who now has the watch,back to Maybrick.The watch like the diary appeared a little over a hundred years after the Whitechapel killings,both in suspicious circumstances,and of course there is going to be suspicion raised against those that associate themselves with both items.
I too have signed the official secrets act,in two countries but under the same crown.The first time I was given the King's shilling.It was even contemplated charging me under the act at one stage in the country I now live,and like you my experiencies would make the hair curl.
Ivor's got it right.There are a lot of bent persons in and out of law enforcement,and those that tend to cover up for others are the worse.
As to the watch,I think time will solve that problem,but I honestly believe it did not belong to Maybrick or the ripper.Suspicion only ,of course,but doesn't a lot of doubt start with a whiff of suspicion.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 06:45 am | | | Peter, As Harry stated the watch and the Ripper diary were alleged to be floating around for over one hundred years until dodgy Mr Barrett showed up with the diary in Liverpool.Then lo and behold just a short time afterwards Jack's watch popped up again in Liverpool. Now I like a good laugh and a good joke just like the next person and that is how I treat the diary and the watch.But please dont expect many people to take either of these "cons" as seriously as a naive minority might. Let us not forget Peter that there are also those who believe that the world is flat. While others believe that little green men from Mars fly down to earth and play in cornfields in rural England making nice geometric patterns because they have nothing better to do.The interesting point about this was that the two men who started the cornfield patterns came foward and admitted that they were responsible and they told the press exactly how they had achieved their results.But a few brainless plonkers who had put their reputations on the line by stating that the circles were the work of aliens accused the two men of lying and stated that the circles must have been the work of aliens because humans could not have achieved such a thing.This was despite the fact that the two men created patterns for the press to prove their point.Some people will believe in anything and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 12:28 pm | | Let us not forget Peter that there are also those who believe that the world is flat.
Seriously, for one minute, I've often considered that one. Even more seriously - I don't believe man has ever been to the moon, I believe those scenes of Armstrong were shot in Hollywood or Elstree or somewhere similar. But you've probably all seen the photographs with the shadows that lean the wrong way and the flag that is waving in the wind when there isn't supposed to be any. Ooh, controversy.
To the watch. A.J. who owns the watch, has never given a reliable story of how he came by it, fair enough. I think PHF has demolished the theory that A.J. really did buy it from a jeweller's shop. But let us carry on.
What is not disputed (and has been ascertained as having taken place) is that A.J. 'discovered' the scratches in the watch when he took it into work to show his chums. This does not preclude that A.J. already knew about the scratches, of course.
But, at the time that one of his friends read the words 'I am Jack' under the microscope, it wasn't A.J. who uttered these words, but his friend - "You've got Jack the Ripper's watch there" and then went on to detail how he'd read just recently about the Maybrick Diary in the newspapers.
So, in fact, for the watch to 'come out' hot on the heels of the diary is not quite as unbelievable as one would at first think. You only have to look at this with an open mind that either/or both the watch and/or the diary could be genuine to see things as I do.
My point is this: Just pretend that either A.J. doesn't know the watch's origins OR it is genuine and he knows damn well that it is. Therefore it is pretty likely that once the diary has 'hit the streets' the watch wouldn't be far behind.
And that is looking at things with an open mind. Whereas you, my friends, are cynical to the extreme and react, quite understandably as Shirley first did, that the watch must be trying to jump on the diary's bandwagon.
But the scientific tests have shown differently.
The scratches are old. AND SO FAR the only argument that anyone has EVER come up with to explain away the scratches on the watch being dated as old (i.e. the corroded particles embedded in the scratches) is Chris T.G. who has opined that perhaps the scratches relating to JTR were made over existing scratches. Hardly likely, but nice try Chris.
The watch is old. The scratches are old. If James Maybrick wasn't JTR then someone about a hundred or so years ago (maybe even 113 years ago) thought it would be a good idea to say that he was. Why?
I'll leave you to chew on that.
Harry, thanks for the compliments.
Peter |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 06:28 pm | | | Peter, I am about as impressed with the tests taken on the watch as I am with the ink tests taken on the Diary. |
Author: John Hacker
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 09:45 pm | | Hello all,
I'm finally back on-line. It's getting late so I'm just gonna lay some groundwork tonight.
Before I can explain how I believe the scratches were made, I need to take a little side trip.
Let's pretend for a moment that the watch is a genuine artifact and that the scratches were indeed made in 1888. James sits down at his little workbench or whatever and carves the initials of that nights victim into the gold surface of the cover. The brass instrument used leaves tiny embedded pieces of brass at the bottom of the scratches, nice new shiny pieces.
As the years go on the watch is occasionally scratched through use. Perhaps by contact with another object in a pocket, or dropping or whatever. Some of the scratches will cross other scratches, letting us know which is newer. The watch is also occasionally polished. With each successive polishing, the edges of the scratches become slightly more worn. The more polishings a scratch endures the more polished out it becomes.
Meanwhile, deep in the "intentional" scratches the tiny pieces of brass slowly oxidize, creating that lovely blackened "old brass" look. It's just like with iron, when iron oxidizes we get rust. That blackened look is brass equivalent of rust. The gold, being highly corrosion-resistant, does no such thing.
Now let's skip ahead to 1993 when the watch is tested by Turgoose and Wild. A careful examination of their reports show that the basis for their age assessment is based on three basic points: the "intentional" scratches are at the bottom of the superficial scratches, the rounded edges/polishing out, and that the brass particles were blackened.
Here are some relevant quotes from Harrison's text:
Dr. Turgoose-"On the basis of the evidence...especially the order in which the markings pre-date the vast majority of the superficial scratch marks (all of those examined). The wear apparent on many of the engravings, evidenced by the rounded edges of the markings and 'polishing out' in places, would indicate a substantial age for the engravings."
Harrison-"...where the eminent metallurgist Dr. Robert Wild tested in under his electron microscope, using the technique of Scanning Auger Microscopy. His findings were better than we had dared hope. Like Dr. Turgoose, Dr. Wild photographed slivers of brass embedded within the scratch marks. They were blackened with age."
Dr. Wild-"Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least several tens of years age. This would agree with the findings of Dr. Turgoose (1993), and in my opinion it is unlikely to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engraving."
Again, the 3 points that are used to "date" the scratches are:
-The "intentional" scratches are at the bottom of the superficial scratches.
-The rounded edges/polishing out
-The oxidized brass particles
Any objections so far?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 04:10 am | | Peter,
A couple of points.A.J. takes the watch to work to show some workmates,believable I'll grant you that,but why go to the extreme of putting it under a microscope at that particular time.An old watch might be expected to have some slight scratches,but why should that cause enough interest to workmates to use a microscope.Unless of course the workmates were prompted to do that by someone who already knew what would show up.
If it took a microscope to see the initials,would it not need the use of a microscope to insert them.Would the ripper go that far,and for why?.
Not having seen the initials,are they of of a workmanship that would need a craftsman to apply,or could any Tom,Dick or Harry do it.(Well Harry couldn't,I'm not that smart).
The watch is old,as is the diary,no question.Are the initials and writing old too?.
H.Mann. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 11:45 am | | Hi All,
Just caught up with the posts on this board, and I would like to make a few fleeting observations.
Firstly, John H says, ‘Unfortunately there really isn't any "scientific" way to date scratches.’
Then Chris George says ‘there is a need to challenge and redo those scientific tests whenever there is any doubt that the initial results could be wrong.’
Well, if we have two independent scientists who can’t date the scratches scientifically, but nevertheless give their professional opinion on examination that they are decades old, I’m not sure how useful it would be to commission further scientists to redo the tests. What do we do? Keep going until one of them gives his opinion that the scratches were made within the last decade, and give three cheers that we’ve at last found the one scientist in the world who can date them reliably? 
Later, John says, ‘It's certainly conceivable that the scratches were made without his [Albert Johnson’s] knowledge.’
Conceivable, but how likely? Did someone find the watch in Albert’s drawer, make the scratches, put the watch back and wait, hoping for the best that the BBC Antiques Roadshow would mention the gold content of old gold watches? It was this tv programme that prompted Albert to take his own watch into work to show his colleagues, and I believe it was not Albert himself, but one of these colleagues who suggested using the microscope that was available there to look more closely at the very faint scratches they saw when they opened the back and held it to the light. How could a forger, taking advantage of the watch Albert kept in his drawer, have manipulated such a set of circumstances? And if it hadn’t happened by good fortune the way it did, how could the forger ever have drawn Albert’s attention to scratches that he wasn’t supposed to know were there, inside the back of a watch that was sitting in a drawer – scratches that would have been to all intents and purposes invisible to both of them as casual observers?
Harry, you were right when you wrote, ‘There is no continuity of ownership from the person who now has the watch, back to Maybrick. The watch like the diary appeared a little over a hundred years after the Whitechapel killings, both in suspicious circumstances, and of course there is going to be suspicion raised against those that associate themselves with both items.’
And it is indeed a great pity that we don’t know more about the history of Albert’s watch before it came to be in the shop where he purchased it in 1992.
But Peter, I think you are wrong to say that Albert ‘has never given a reliable story of how he came by it…’, and to think that ‘PHF has demolished the theory that A.J. really did buy it from a jeweller's shop.’
It’s not a theory. I believe Albert when he says he bought this watch from the jeweller’s shop. It was PHF’s unsubstantiated theory that there were somehow two watches involved, and that Albert was lying about how he came by the one with the Maybrick scratches. If that makes me gullible so be it. But I see no reason why Albert would be lying about any of this. What has he had to gain?
And Harry, you wrote, ‘If it took a microscope to see the initials, would it not need the use of a microscope to insert them. Would the ripper go that far, and for why?’
I think the idea is that it took a microscope to see the initials because they had either been polished out to make them appear old and very faint, or they had become faint with time. Had anyone put them in years and years ago, they would presumably have been much more visible at the time. I just wonder how much skill it would involve to make the scratches, then polish them out just enough to make them still readable under a microscope and virtually invisible to the naked eye, but not too much.
But Perhaps John will help us with that one.
And lastly, Peter my dear, how could you? I too have signed the Official Secrets Act, but I would never use incautious phraseology like ‘it really stuck in my throat’ when talking about George Michael. You know what they say about careless whispers. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 11:57 am | | Hi again all,
One thing I didn't touch on and meant to (getting away from George Michael of course, he wouldn't want me touching on anything ), was the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Barretts and the Johnsons had ever heard of each other's existence before their Maybrick artefacts emerged into the public consciousness.
So if there was ever a common ownership, or an intended double hoax, it puts the diary's creation back a bit - well before the Sphere book entered Mike's world at any rate, or the 'tin match box empty' entered the public domain.
This is why people are stuck with Albert either being knowingly involved in a bandwagon hoax, or someone else's dupe, totally unaware and unable to contemplate the possibility that his watch could have been taken from him after purchase and tampered with without so much as a by your leave.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 03:26 pm | | The Watch.
According to Robert Smith in the Postcript of the Diary, Hyperion edition, he received a phone call in June 1993 from a "semi-retired college security officer" saying that he had seen the speculation in the Liverpool Post that James Maybrick was going to be identified as the Ripper. According to Smith, this was on the 23rd April 1993. Right at the beginning Smith makes an unwarranted assumption, giving us: "...only two rational explanations." That the watch was part of "a recent sophisticated conspiracy that produced both the diary and the markings on the watch..." or that it was a genuine Maybrick confession. The third explanation, that it was an independent forgery inspired by the Post's Maybrick identification seems to have eluded him.
The watch photo in the Hyperion edition is about as good as any available. Smith thinks that the Maybrick signature is very similar to that on the marriage certificate and the "k" is "very distinctive." To me it isn't but others may have different ideas.
Now this is, as far as I know, the earliest public description of the entry of the watch into the diary affair. In dealing with other aspects of the matter I rely more on Shirley Harrison than on Paul Feldman for obvious reasons. One minor puzzle is on p239 (Blake edn.) where Shirley tells us that she and Sally Evemy were not told immediately about the watch by Smith although he had spoken to Keith Skinner about it. Why didn't he speak to Shirley? This period is of course confusing to the outside investigator as the Feldman influence became more a part of the matter and I would be interested in learning from Shirley or Keith what the situation was at that time. However, to get back to the watch:
Shortly after Shirley had her (undated) meeting with Albert Johnson, she met his friend John White from whom we hear the "Antiques Roadshow" story for which see p241 op cit. It should be noted that the group were talking about gold which had been mentioned in that programme (and has anyone identified that particular show?) "...and Albert said he had this watch..." There was a discussion about 18ct gold and Albert brings the watch in later to show everyone. The watch is opened (as White says: "We could see the scratches but we couldn't make them out." Now although White says that "we" would take it over to the Science and Technology block, it is quite importantly Albert who comes back to the group and says: "It's just initials and there's a name - Maybrick - in it and there's also something about Jack." White gets the connnection and announces that the watch must be Jack the Ripper's because he has been reading the diary story in the Echo/Post. This of course dates the meeting to after 23rd April 1993 and probably very soon after this date. So if we believe the story that White tells, there's an indication that Albert may be "forcing" the watch and Maybrick connection on to his friends and it's not, as some would have it today an independent discovery of the scratches by someone other than Albert.
I cannot get involved in the story that there were actually two watches as this is a Feldman-induced nightmare seemingly designed to provide a Maybrick heritage for the Johnsons.
Albert's brother Robert (Robbie) is an interesting part of the watch story. Shirley tells us quite properly that he was "... in prison when the watch was bought by
Albert. He was mixed up with drugs."(5/7/2000) However, was he also in prison when the scratches were found on the watch? Robbie died 14/8/1995 in an accident at San Roque, Torremolinos, Spain. Shirley tells us in the same message quoted above that his body was brought back to the UK by a friend to whom he had previously sold his share of the watch. I have asked before who that friend was. I am still interested in knowing that, if anyone has any information. I have been told of a name but do not feel it proper to mention that name here without additional evidence.
Some time ago I wrote::"We have four persons who are or have been
involved in either the diary or the watch: Albert Johnson,
Anne Graham, Robert Johnson and Mike Barrett. Of those, two:
Robbie and Mike have been accused of having a dodgy past and
Anne of having a "mysterious" one. This is surely quite a
high percentage." We're now able to say that Robbie
definitely had a pretty dodgy past and we have Feldmans'
word that the same is true for Mike."
It has also been said that Albert Johnson has paid out several thousand pounds in having tests made on the watch but as Shirley has told us, this was all repaid to him. The story about the "Texas Millionaire" who offered to buy the watch for about $40,000 is, we are assured, true. And yet Albert still has the watch. I would really like to see some more information about this extraordinary tale.
And lastly, the watch is still a ladies model with a completly wrong set of initials on the cover. |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 04:50 pm | | John (Hacker)
Skimmed briefly over what you wrote. One major objection: The watch could not have got scratched in anyone's pocket as the engravings are on the inside of the watch. Thus the engravings would have been protected.
Harry, I think Caz covered the points I was going to make to you.
Caz. Regarding George Michael and my subconscious desire to become Linda Lovelace. You were the only one who spotted it! Well done. I do put these little "asides" in now and then to keep John Omlor amused, but he never picks up on them. Well, hardly ever, I wouldn't want to be accused of exaggerating now, would I?
Peter B.
One reason I can think of as to why Robert didn't tell Shirley about the watch immediately. It's the same reason he didn't tell Feldy about it immediately. He didn't want to disturb them with every "crackpot" that turned up, or phoned, or wrote. Naughty Feldy hints that maybe Robert wanted to keep the watch to himself.
As to the two watches. I simply can't believe you swallow the story of Albert buying the watch as he described it. PHF asked the shop owners to describe the watch. They described it as (I'm doing this from memory now, so will be prone to John Omlor style mistakes that will somehow prove the diary/watch to be a)forgeries or b)genuine) - White face, black numerals, no engravings on the outside (not the inside J.H.) and in anycase there wouldn't have been room for engravings on the outside owing to a pattern on it. This description of the watch was wholeheartedly agreed upon by Tim Dundas, the man to whom the watch went for repair.
Fast forward to Albert's watch. It's gold. The numbers are gold. Everything about it is gold. It is not black and it is not white. It is gold. There are initials engraved on the outer casing.
Ergo two different watches. I fail to see how you can conclude differently, especially as the shop keeper (or was it Tim Dundas) stated that the watch had 'Lancaster Verity' in black on it's white dial. No it didn't. The words don't appear on the watch. Albert has two watches. Or he did.
Going for some more easy listening with George Michael now, apparently he wants to be my 'Father Figure'. Oo-Er!
Peter. |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 05:33 pm | | Caz,
"Conceivable, but how likely?"
Not very likely at all, but it's possible. Albert Johnson is by the best cantidate for the watch forger in my opinion for many of the reasons you listed above. However, I haven't spent a lot of time looking at AJ as of yet, I've been focusing on the physical properties of the watch itself and the knowledge needed to make it.
As far as "I just wonder how much skill it would involve to make the scratches, then polish them out just enough to make them still readable under a microscope and virtually invisible to the naked eye, but not too much." My answer would be "not too much". Our forger was smart but I don't think any kind of practical "skill" would be involved. The forger merely needed to look at it until it looked artistically "right". He probably had a magnifying glass, but I doubt a microscope was needed.
I will try and get the next chunk up with the heart of the "how I think it was done" bit tonight or tommorow. The week has turned ugly on me and I'm not getting a lot of time to work on anything not mandatory.
Peter,
"The watch could not have got scratched in anyone's pocket as the engravings are on the inside of the watch. Thus the engravings would have been protected."
Excellent! We actually AGREE on something Peter. How exactly are all of those supposed "superficial" scratches supposed to have gotten there? And what kind of person actually polishes the inside cover (over the mechanism, not the face!) to the point of "polishing out" the scratches? But if we are to pretend the watch is an actual artifact we have to assume it was accidentally scratched somehow. Over and over again. I was simply trying to provide examples of how incidental scratches could occur and frankly, it's not easy to come up with a plausible reason that they could get there.
Unless of course they were added to provide an illusion of age.
If you'd care to provide some more possibilities, I'd certainly appreciate it Peter.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 10:45 pm | | Back to the watch. Let's take it a step further. Now that I've gone over how it was dated, I'll go through how that effect could be produced quickly.
The scratches were made with a brass implement of some sort. We know this because we have the embedded brass splinters. Perhaps a brass nail or something similar.
The scratches could then be artificially aged by adding superficial scratches, polishing, and repeating. Over and over and over again. The key is to create a pattern of scratches that clearly places the "intentional" scratches near the bottom to add the appearance of age, and polish it enough so that the older layers clearly show a great deal of wear. The only real trap to avoid is to make sure that different objects are used to inflict the various scratches. If all of the scratches were made with the same object, it would set off warning bells. Use a rock, a fork, a pin, etc and you should be safe.
This is entirely consist ant with the report of Dr. Turgoose. "They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing or artificial wearing stages." The different 'tools' needed are simply random objects to scratch the watch with.
But there is still the question of the oxidized brass particles... The simple truth is that brass will oxidize at different rates under different conditions. To illustrate, imagine you abandoned a car deep in the desert, and another one 2 feet deep in ocean water. Which will rust faster?
"Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least several tens of years old." - Dr. Wild
However if the watch were not kept in a normal environment, but instead exposed to a strong oxidizing agent, the particles could be blackened in very short order. It's not difficult.
But don't take my word for it. Here's a little experiment that I suggest for those that are curious.
1) Find a small brass object of some kind.
2) Most brass items today come with a coat of varnish so that they don't blacken. This must be removed with acetone or by boiling the object for 5-10 minutes. If all else fails, try sandpaper.
3) Brush vinegar onto the object.
4) Observe object closely.
I've tried it and it's very effective. If the watch were brushed with vinegar or another oxidizing agent, the tiny particles would oxidize almost instantly.
The whole forgery process would require only a very few basic facts to plan out. The most obscure piece of knowledge needed is the simple awareness that the implement used to carve the scratches would probably leave pieces behind. I've put some thinking into what our forger's background could be and where he could have picked up the info he needed. It's not that obscure.
I'll have to continue on some other day though. I've been typing too much today.
Also, somewhere around here I have a list of points that lead me to the conclusion that it is indeed a fake I can't seem to find that I'll try to dig up for next time.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 12:43 am | | Hi Peter,It is alleged that Albert Johnson bought a watch and was the sole owner of it.Yet it transpires that his brother Robbie sold his share of the watch to a 3rd party!!!!
Caroline Morris is in touch with Keith Skinner so perhaps he could inform us of the circumstances in which this deal was cut.
Perhaps he could also give us the name of this 3rd party with an interest in the watch. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 01:46 am | | This won't be a politically correct post, but I feel like being blunt. What gets me about the watch is that the timing of the discovery is so suspicious that even Paul Feldman found it impossible to swallow. Like Peter Wood, he finds it necessary to turn his star witness into a liar and cloud the whole bloody mess with talk of conspiracies, two watches, etc. etc. Strange, very strange.
But I don't think this is the answer. I think it is entirely possible that Albert Johnson is completely truthful and yet the watch is still a modern forgery. Just use a little psychology and commonsense and humanity and one can realize how this might possibly be the case.
If I could talk to one person about the watch, I think I'd talk to Robbie's 'cousin', the fellow Feldy mentions in passing. I'd also like to have a few words in private with Devereux's son-in-law, the gentleman mentioned in the Sunday Times article. Always wondered why Devereux's family said that they 'resented the implication' when Anne & Mike claimed they got the diary from Tony. Almost as though they knew it was a fake. Nine years might loosen tongues. Some of these people should be re-interviewed. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 10:04 am | | Hi All,
Peter B wrote:
‘It has also been said that Albert Johnson has paid out several thousand pounds in having tests made on the watch but as Shirley has told us, this was all repaid to him. The story about the "Texas Millionaire" who offered to buy the watch for about $40,000 is, we are assured, true. And yet Albert still has the watch. I would really like to see some more information about this extraordinary tale.’
So would I.
For starters, when Albert paid up front for the tests, did he know, or even hope, that he would be repaid by Shirley or anyone else?
Did Robbie perhaps help out financially with these tests, thereby earning his part share in the watch that way?
And why does Albert still have the watch if, as John H says, he is ‘by [far] the best candidate for the watch forger in my opinion…’? His best bet was to sell it while he had the chance, was it not, if profit was the motive, as has repeatedly been said about the diary forgers. With every passing day comes the risk of more and more people thinking it’s a worthless modern fake – or maybe not.
What would people be writing about now if no dirt could have been dug up about Robbie and Mike’s ‘dodgy’ pasts, or suspicions attached to Anne’s ‘mysterious’ one?
John H,
I’d be very interested if you would still think Albert was by far the best candidate for the watch forger after actually meeting this gentle man and sitting down with him, with or without his lovely wife, for a good old chin-wag. I met them both for the first time in Bournemouth last September and this was what caused me to write a while back on the boards that if Albert was a forger I was a banana. It’s nonsense on stilts I’m afraid. But you’d only know that by finding it out for yourself (or if you don’t trust your own judgement, by paying for a polygraph test ).
You also wrote about the watch forger thus:
‘He probably had a magnifying glass, but I doubt a microscope was needed.’
Also in Bournemouth, Albert’s wife held a decent magnifying glass for me to look at the inside of the watch where the scratches were meant to be. Others could just make them out when the light was exactly right, but try as I might I couldn’t see a thing – I’m not talking about making out actual initials or words – I couldn’t even see scratch marks, only a smooth gold surface. So our forger would have needed a much more powerful magnifying glass than the one held by Albert’s wife.
And you ask:
‘And what kind of person actually polishes the inside cover (over the mechanism, not the face!) to the point of "polishing out" the scratches?’
Didn’t the jeweller who sold it to Albert have a go at polishing out scratches in the watch before putting it in the window, without realising what they were? I thought I read that somewhere on the boards.
And to sum up, you’ve explained how the scratches could be modern, but appear old to the two scientists who were paid for their opinion. But could they equally be old, and the scientists be right? I’m not saying genuine, just old?
Hi RJ,
I was a bit concerned by your problem with Devereux's family saying they 'resented the implication' when Anne & Mike claimed they got the diary from Tony. ‘Almost as though they knew it was a fake’, you wrote.
Are you perhaps reading way too much into this? Very few people apparently, including you, think it can be anything but a fake – and a pretty awful one at that. And certainly suspicions about its origins and attempts to authenticate it go back to day one. I would resent anyone (and especially anyone like Mike) saying publicly that they got it from one of my family members, whether I had reason to believe they did or not. If I didn't believe it, it goes without saying that I'd also believe the thing must be dodgy. Why else would they lie about getting it from one of my family? We could have claimed it back. The resentment would be no less than if I knew it was a fake and that my family member was somehow involved. But then it would be a false resentment, put on to hide my guilty knowledge.
But again, as has been said before, how idiotic would it have been for Mike to name one of his co-forgers, even a dead one, as the person he got the diary from - especially if there was a possibility that his family knew something?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 11:32 am | | Caz,
You said, "I’d be very interested if you would still think Albert was by far the best candidate for the watch forger after actually meeting this gentle man and sitting down with him, with or without his lovely wife, for a good old chin-wag. I met them both for the first time in Bournemouth last September and this was what caused me to write a while back on the boards that if Albert was a forger I was a banana. It’s nonsense on stilts I’m afraid. But you’d only know that by finding it out for yourself (or if you don’t trust your own judgement, by paying for a polygraph test )."
Yes Caz, I am aware of your feelings regarding AJs honesty. And it's nice that you have trust in him. However, I'd like to point out that there are some convincing liars out there in the world. And also that being the forger of the watch and a "gentle man" are not necessarily incompatible. There is no reason that the forger couldn't be a very nice person. (And in fact, I think there is good reason to believe just that.) I'd certainly love to hook him up to a polygraph. A polygraph can't prove anything, but the results would certainly be interesting.
I'm certainly not adverse to examining other suspects in regards to the watch forgery, but AJ is clearly at the top of the current heap IMO.
"Also in Bournemouth, Albert’s wife held a decent magnifying glass for me to look at the inside of the watch where the scratches were meant to be. Others could just make them out when the light was exactly right, but try as I might I couldn’t see a thing – I’m not talking about making out actual initials or words – I couldn’t even see scratch marks, only a smooth gold surface. So our forger would have needed a much more powerful magnifying glass than the one held by Albert’s wife"
No, I don't think they would have needed a particularly powerful one. They didn't need to be able to see it at the molecular level, they only needed to observe that the scratches were beginning to polish out. Each time they would be a little less visible. When they're hard to see, you've got a winner.
"Didn’t the jeweler who sold it to Albert have a go at polishing out scratches in the watch before putting it in the window, without realising what they were? I thought I read that somewhere on the boards."
I never saw that particular snippet. It's possible I guess, but I would tend to doubt it. I would expect a jeweler to be more successful in trying to remove scratches. If the superficial surface scratches were intact, I can't believe that much of an effort was made. In any case, that wouldn't explain the number of superficial scratches.
"And to sum up, you’ve explained how the scratches could be modern, but appear old to the two scientists who were paid for their opinion. But could they equally be old, and the scientists be right? I’m not saying genuine, just old?"
It is possible, sure. Personally, I do not think that it's very likely though. The superficial scratches strongly suggest to me that a deliberate effort was made to artificially age the scratches. If that was done, why would the watch be left around "unused" for any length of time? Also, the methodology used to create it suggests that the forger was aware that it would be examined microscopically which makes me tend toward thinking it's a modern forgery.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 06:04 pm | | Hi John
I like your argument. You make some good points. But, ultimately, they are just conjecture. And once again Caz has beaten me to explaining that the shop keeper and/or Tim Dundas tried to polish out the 'marks' on the inside of the watch. You say:
"Didn’t the jeweler who sold it to Albert have a go at polishing out scratches in the watch before putting it in the window, without realising what they were? I thought I read that somewhere on the boards."
I never saw that particular snippet. It's possible I guess, but I would tend to doubt it".
I say:
So you haven't read PHF's and Shirley's respective books, then? It's all there, John. The scratches are old. You try admirably to explain how they may have been forged and I have to respect you for that, but ultimately you are clutching at straws.
Regards
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 06:39 pm | | Peter Wood writes:
"The scratches are old."
Unestablished speculation written as fact.
A deliberately misleading rhetoric of certainty.
Yes, John H., you really should read Paul Feldman's book -- you'd be used to this by now.
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 09:25 pm | | Peter,
I will confess I rarely pick up Feldman's book. I've read it a couple of times, but on the whole I prefer to read worthwhile books. I do pick it up for a laugh now and then.
But I did look through the two books regarding Tim Dundas, and boy is his testimony all over the map. I wouldn't try to hang on to anything he says too tightly because he's states that the initials weren't in the watch he saw. But whether he polishes the inside of the watch or not doesn't affect my argument in the slightest. The watches show sign of incremental wear and polishing. That's what Turgoose based his estimate on.
However I was struck by the contradictory nature of the two books and your recent posts. Contrast these two positions for me:
"Ergo two different watches. I fail to see how you can conclude differently, especially as the shop keeper (or was it Tim Dundas) stated that the watch had 'Lancaster Verity' in black on it's white dial. No it didn't. The words don't appear on the watch. Albert has two watches. Or he did." - Peter Wood
"And once again Caz has beaten me to explaining that the shop keeper and/or Tim Dundas tried to polish out the 'marks' on the inside of the watch." - Peter Wood
In the first statement you're asserting Tim Dundas never saw the watch and in the second you've got him polishing out the scratches. Can you see the problem here? Please let me know what your position is once you decide if you're going with Harrison or you're in the Feldman Zone.
Ah well, back to the watch. I'm hardly grasping at straws Peter, and I am by no means done. :-)
There are many reasons to believe the watch is fake and very few to believe that it's genuine besides the scientific results, and I think I've demonstrated that they're not as solid as they could be.
Here are a few off the top of my head. Feel free to join in.
1) It's a woman's watch.
2) The initials J.O.
3) It contains only the initials of the canonical 5, not the "Manchester victims".
4) SKs rarely personify their victims in that fashion.
5) Nor did the fictional James Maybrick of diary fame.
6) The superficial surface scratches seem contrived to me. How would it get scratched that often?
7) The watch was made in 1846, so why were all of the superficial scratches tested above the initials, etc? Some should predate the (cough) 1888 scratches if it was that prone to scratching.
8) The timing of the appearance of the watch seems suspicious to me.
9) The diary doesn't refer to the watch in any way.
10) The nature of the markings appear to me to be contrived in such a way to create a readily idetifiable "JtR" artifact. "I am Jack", "James Maybrick", and the initials? Jack didn't care who his victims were. "Maybrick" didn't either. So why the initials? C'mon...
Regards,
John Hacker |
|
|
|
|
