Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

[Joshua Rogan]

There's no doubting the fact that he would have examined the marks of all the watches he repaired...

Not according to the Murphys, who said the repair to Albert's watch would not have required Dundas to 'examine' the inner surface where the markings are.

Surely he would have added details of his repair to the other repair marks on the surface with the signature and initials?

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry to interject. Good point about the internet. However, whilst a hoaxer might reasonably have assumed that the average Joe or Jane would be unlikely to subject the Diary to close analysis, surely they couldn't have expected the same response from respected JtR researchers, such as Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, and Stewart Evans.

There are murders that we are only even now discovering, John, with all the automation at our disposal. Besides, not every murder is recorded, some are not detected, there are anonymous victims of murder, and victims of murder who used pseudonyms or nicknames. Against that backdrop, even the stalwarts that you mention would struggle to prove conclusively that a made-up "JJ" and "MS" hadn't fallen victim to Maybrick-the-Ripper.

[Abby Normal]

How could they, Abby? The diary had yet to be published when the watch discovery was made!

Love,

Caz
X

yes yes I understand that. so it points to two different hoaxers no?

[caz]

By reading things carefully and applying a bit of objective logic. For example...

Turgoose: "[A]ll the random superficial scratches were later than the engravings."

Indeed. Carve the engravings on the Monday, polish and round them out on the Tuesday, and add some scratches on the Wednesday. Assuming that the rounding-out process didn't also create some scratches, in which case the hoaxer could have taken the rest of the week off to replenish his stocks of polish and scouring pads. As I said a couple of days back, that the engravings were underneath the scratches tells us about the sequencing of the marks, but nothing about their date. Not that Turgoose claimed otherwise, to be fair, but some might have interpreted his statement as saying something about the age of the marks, when it doesn't. The marks could have been made, and the scratches laid over them, at any time.

Turgoose: "Particles were seen in the bases of the scratches... It would seem that they are brass particles and appear to have come from the inscribing tool... they appear to have corroded surfaces, and again this may suggest some significant time since they were deposited."

Or the particles could have been left behind by a corroded instrument? Note, also, the cautious language used (it would seem... this may suggest), which is what I'd expect to see from a responsible scientist, so fair play to Turgoose. However, a non-scientist reading those words might skip those qualifying statements and conclude that Turgoose said that the engravings definitely had been there for a significant time, when he didn't.

Turgoose: "The wear apparent on many of the engravings, evidenced by the rounded edges of the markings and the 'polishing out' in places would indicate a substantial age for the engravings"

How much effort would it take to round/polish-out some engravings which were, after all, superficial in nature?

Hi Gareth,

I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing your own answer would be "not much effort". But would that just be a guess on your part?

The more relevant question for me would be how easy would it have been for anyone in 1993 to polish out entirely whatever scratch marks Murphy saw in early 1992 and failed to buff out with jeweller's rouge? And I do mean entirely, because under electron microscopy there was not the faintest trace of a single scratch mark beneath the Maybrick and ripper engravings. Maybe this question should have been asked of Turgoose and Wild, by those who accept that Murphy would have had no reason to claim he had tried to buff out several scratch marks if it wasn't true, but at the same time believe the watch was hoaxed at a later date.

If it would have been impossible for anyone to remove every last microscopic trace of any pre-existing scratch marks on that surface in 1992, before putting their own scratches on, in effect, virgin territory, then the surface must have been completely untouched when the hoaxer began his work on it, and if that was in 1993, Murphy's stubborn scratches and his attempt to buff them out must have been a figment of his imagination.

If, on the other hand, it would have been possible to restore Murphy's scratched surface to its original Victorian condition, as good as new, without leaving any evidence of the process, don't you have to hand it to your 1993 hoaxer to have had the foresight even to try this? Would he know how well he had succeeded without the specialised equipment available to Turgoose and Wild? Did he reason that anyone taking the watch back to the shop could show Murphy the newly applied scratches, which would mimic the old ones he had shrewdly thought to remove before proceeding with the hoax?

Bristol Uni:"I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago... This could explain why the silver enrichment at the base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch face and would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years."

I don't know where the 'six to ten years ago' came from, but as Murphy said he polished that surface in early 1992, and tried to buff out several scratch marks in it, that would certainly be consistent with the engravings pre-dating his polishing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Gareth,

I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing your own answer would be "not much effort". But would that just be a guess on your part?

The more relevant question for me would be how easy would it have been for anyone in 1993 to polish out entirely whatever scratch marks Murphy saw in early 1992 and failed to buff out with jeweller's rouge? And I do mean entirely, because under electron microscopy there was not the faintest trace of a single scratch mark beneath the Maybrick and ripper engravings. Maybe this question should have been asked of Turgoose and Wild, by those who accept that Murphy would have had no reason to claim he had tried to buff out several scratch marks if it wasn't true, but at the same time believe the watch was hoaxed at a later date.

If it would have been impossible for anyone to remove every last microscopic trace of any pre-existing scratch marks on that surface in 1992, before putting their own scratches on, in effect, virgin territory, then the surface must have been completely untouched when the hoaxer began his work on it, and if that was in 1993, Murphy's stubborn scratches and his attempt to buff them out must have been a figment of his imagination.

If, on the other hand, it would have been possible to restore Murphy's scratched surface to its original Victorian condition, as good as new, without leaving any evidence of the process, don't you have to hand it to your 1993 hoaxer to have had the foresight even to try this? Would he know how well he had succeeded without the specialised equipment available to Turgoose and Wild? Did he reason that anyone taking the watch back to the shop could show Murphy the newly applied scratches, which would mimic the old ones he had shrewdly thought to remove before proceeding with the hoax?



I don't know where the 'six to ten years ago' came from, but as Murphy said he polished that surface in early 1992, and tried to buff out several scratch marks in it, that would certainly be consistent with the engravings pre-dating his polishing.

Love,

Caz
X

Wouldn't the watch have already been over 40 years old when - if - the engravings were made in 1888?

[caz]

Fair enough Gareth. But I'd also assume that a scientist would understand the ramifications of using the word 'likely' when giving the results of his analysis. If he didn't believe that his results justified the word he would have surely just said "the engravings might have been done in 1888/9 or equally they might not."

Hi HS,

Robert Smith phoned Dr Wild in the wake of his report to ask for his off-the-record opinion on whether the engravings could date back as far as 1888, and he happily confirmed that they could. So his formal estimate of 'at least several tens of years' had erred on the side of caution, as is the way with all good scientists.

The ugly suggestion I have seen elsewhere, that experts will give the result they are being paid to give, is particularly stupid. Who seriously risks a previously excellent reputation in their field for a few lousy hundred quid, in return for giving a verdict that would demonstrate either their incompetence or their crookedness?

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

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Wouldn't the watch have already been over 40 years old when - if - the engravings were made in 1888?

Yes, Joshua, but the argument has been that the inner surface in question would not become scratched at all in the normal course of events, not even superficially, which would explain the lack of any scratches beneath the Maybrick/ripper markings. Whoever did that was working on a totally unblemished surface at the time. If this was in 1993, the watch was already nearly 150 years old by then.

There would seem to be no easy explanation for Murphy's scratch marks - now you see them, now you don't - in 1992. How did they get on that inner surface, if the hoaxer wasn't let loose on it for another year?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Robert Smith phoned Dr Wild in the wake of his report to ask for his off-the-record opinion on whether the engravings could date back as far as 1888, and he happily confirmed that they could.

I wouldn't read much into that, Caz. Gold doesn't readily tarnish or wear down of its own accord for a long, long time. An engraving, however shallow, made in the 20th century would look pretty much like one made in the 19th, and probably earlier for that matter.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, Joshua, but the argument has been that the inner surface in question would not become scratched at all in the normal course of events, not even superficially, which would explain the lack of any scratches beneath the Maybrick/ripper markings. Whoever did that was working on a totally unblemished surface at the time. If this was in 1993, the watch was already nearly 150 years old by then.

Quite, but if the surface remained unblemished for several decades, then it was obviously not an area that was subject to any wear. So there's no reason to suppose that it wouldn't remain unblemished for another century or so.

There would seem to be no easy explanation for Murphy's scratch marks - now you see them, now you don't - in 1992. How did they get on that inner surface, if the hoaxer wasn't let loose on it for another year?

If it's an easy explanation you're after, the obvious one (not necessarily the correct one) is that Murphy lied about trying to polish out some unidentifieid scratches, in order to suggest that the engravings were there in 1992 but he didn't recognise them for what they were, and at the same time to give an explanation for the circular scratch marks, lest anyone think that they were the result of artificially ageing the supposed Maybrick markings.

[caz]

Indeed, but the Murphys just said 'scratches' and not 'scratches that could have been writing'. If they'd said the latter, then that would have been impressive. Or did the Johnsons during their visits tell the Murphys that there was lettering on the watch?

Graham

Hi Graham,

Oh I'm sure that's why the Johnsons returned to the jewellers with the watch - to show them the scratch marks, explain what they had revealed under the microscope and ask what they knew about the watch, if anything. That's how the Murphys were able to say they had tried to clean up the scratches because they didn't realise what they were. They had the advantage of being able to compare the barely visible scratch marks shown them in the summer of 1993, with the barely visible ones they remembered trying to buff out in early 1992, unlike Dundas, who never saw the watch after the discovery was made, and had to rely entirely on his faulty memory of when he repaired the watch Albert went on to buy, and what this one looked like.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I wouldn't read much into that, Caz. Gold doesn't readily tarnish or wear down of its own accord for a long, long time. An engraving, however shallow, made in the 20th century would look pretty much like one made in the 19th, and probably earlier for that matter.

What a shame Albert didn't pay you for a third opinion then, Gareth. What do these stupid scientists know, eh?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

What a shame Albert didn't pay you for a third opinion then, Gareth. What do these stupid scientists know, eh?

Nothing to do with the scientist, but in the interpretation of what the scientist said. Of course it was possible that the engravings could have dated back to 1888; all I'm saying is that, given the inertness of gold, they could have been much older, or much younger.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing to do with the scientist, but in the interpretation of what the scientist said. Of course it was possible that the engravings could have dated back to 1888; all I'm saying is that, given the inertness of gold, they could have been much older, or much younger.

Perfectly correct Gareth. And Turgoose felt that older was likelier

[caz]

Quite, but if the surface remained unblemished for several decades, then it was obviously not an area that was subject to any wear. So there's no reason to suppose that it wouldn't remain unblemished for another century or so.

Aren't you confusing scratches with wear, Joshua? I'm talking about an inner surface that would not normally get scratched accidentally. The earliest markings - the Maybrick/ripper ones - were not made by accident, so I'm not sure what the superficial scratches that came later can really tell us, except that the back was opened at some point by someone, who may or may not have been the same person, and the surface got scratched again for whatever reason.

If it's an easy explanation you're after, the obvious one (not necessarily the correct one) is that Murphy lied about trying to polish out some unidentifieid scratches, in order to suggest that the engravings were there in 1992 but he didn't recognise them for what they were, and at the same time to give an explanation for the circular scratch marks, lest anyone think that they were the result of artificially ageing the supposed Maybrick markings.

But cui bono? What did Murphy possibly have to gain from lying about any of this? Was he aware of the order in which all the scratches were made, or that the Maybrick/ripper ones came first? If he wasn't sure, he could simply have denied seeing anything at all that might have benefited from some jeweller's rouge [the scratches really are barely visible] and who could have challenged him?

It could only have hindered a hoaxer if Murphy had been able to state categorically that the surface he was now being shown had been entirely smooth and scratch free, just as he had expected it to be, when he opened up the back to clean it in 1992. How could a hoaxer in 1993 have been confident that Murphy would not say that, if the surface had indeed been totally untouched and unblemished before they set out to make it look, at much closer inspection, like Streatham ice rink at the end of a busy session?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Perfectly correct Gareth. And Turgoose felt that older was likelier

Was this the same Turgoose who, when confronted with corroded brass particles in the engravings, took them to be an indication of age, and not that they could have been left behind more recently by falling off a corroded inscribing tool? The same Turgoose who took the "polishing out" of the engravings as an indication of their "substantial age", rather than possibly the result of recent deliberate tampering? The same Turgoose who put caveats around his conclusions? I think it was.