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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[John G]

Hi Gareth,

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.

[Sam Flynn]

If we suppose the diarist put those extra two murders in just for jolly, not knowing or caring if anyone would find two real cases that might fit the bill, isn't it just as well in that case that no names were mentioned, either in the diary or as initials in the watch?

I don't think that either hoaxers would have worried unduly about such things, Caz - and why should they have, in those pre-Internet days? It's mainly due to the Internet, digitized newspaper archives and court records, coupled with sophisticated search engines, that we're able to find such things so easily today. Who, apart from the most tech-savvy, could have predicted all this in the early 1990s?

I see no reason at all why the watch hoaxer shouldn't have thrown in, for example, a "JJ" and an "MS" just for jolly, if they'd known that the diary indicated two extra victims. In the 1990s, it was unlikely that it could have been conclusively proven that no "EJ" or "MS" had been murdered; indeed, we'd struggle to do so now. On the other hand, they might have struck it lucky if the murders of an "Elizabeth Jones" and/or "Mary Smith" were - eventually - found, so it was practically a shot to nothing.

They could safely have included a pair of made-up initials on the watch, which would only have reinforced the idea that its owner was also the fiendish "James Maybrick" of the diary if, that is, they knew that the diary had put two "bonus" victims up for grabs. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes to me.

[caz]

If the diary hadn't been published, how could the watch hoaxer know there were two extra victims? The very fact that the diary and watch don't corroborate each other on this particular point is a strong indicator that they were created by independent hoaxers.

BTW, the diary doesn't name the victims (canonical or otherwise) anyway. If the watch-hoaxer had known the contents of the diary, he might as well have made up the extra initials; that he didn't is also consistent with his being independent of whoever faked the diary.

If we suppose the diarist put those extra two murders in just for jolly, not knowing or caring if anyone would find two real cases that might fit the bill, isn't it just as well in that case that no names were mentioned, either in the diary or as initials in the watch? How would "Sir Jim" have known those names? He did mention MJK by name in the diary, but she was the only one to receive that 'honour'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

sounds like the watch forgers didn't read the diary forgers close enough.

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

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Hi John,

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mike was goaded into including his estranged wife as a co-conspirator because of her own 'in the family' story, told in the immediate wake of his original boast, back in June 1994, that the diary was all his own work.

Add to that the fact that she was now working with the hated Feldman on a family connection back to the Maybricks, and Mike's original claim had been quickly retracted, and received with much incredulity by diary researchers on all sides, and you have a recipe for an angry and humiliated abandoned husband to drop Anne in it, to get some revenge as well as some much needed credibility back into his forgery claim. A neat trick really, considering all the times he had needed her to polish up his act before the diary came along to put the mockers on everything.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, you might well be right: at the end of the day, it's all about instinct and impressions. It's also worth pointing out that, in Mike's original affidavit, he not only claims that his wife wrote the Diary, she also purchased the red diary.

However, if his primary motivation was gaining revenge on Anne, why implicate TD as well? What had he done to offend him?

Then there's the matter of patterns of behaviour. Thus, in his affidavit he makes it abundantly clear that he was the creative brain behind the Diary, whereas as Anne was basically working under his direction. However, as I've pointed out, Mike had a long history of making wildly exaggerated claims about his achievements.

I also think that whoever was the real driving force behind the Diary must have been highly motivated: otherwise these hoaxes would surely be much more common. Does that sound like Mike to you? After all, he spent several years as a house-husband whilst his wife worked as a secretary.

You possibly don't share this view, but my overall impression is that the Diary was well-written, at least from a psychological point of view. And if it wasn't, why are we still debating its authenticity over a quarter of a century later?

Returning to Mike's affidavit, it's obviously written in an extremely sloppy style. I mean, just consider this one sentence: "At about the same time as all this was being discussed by my wife and I. I spoke to William Graham about our idea. This was my wifes father and he said to me its a good idea..."

Why the full stop after the first "I"? And, of course, "wifes" should be "wife's" and "its" should be "it's."

I therefore ask myself, could an individual, who appears to be only semi-literate and poorly motivated, have even of conceived of the Diary? Could he be responsible for the content-the real creative and driving force behind the hoax- even assuming Anne actually wrote the Diary whilst he dictated? Personally, I think it unlikeky.

[caz]

And if dear old Jim was boasting in the Diary about bumping off a couple of unfortunate ladies in Manchester, where were their initials on the Watch?

The thot plickens.

Graham

Since no reports of those murders have ever come to light, one wonders what initials could have been used to represent them, regardless of who put the best known five in the watch.

"Excuse me, love, could you give me your full name - no aliases please - before I try to slaughter you and rummage around in your innards?"

"Mad for it. The name's Wendy. Wendy Copscomb."

"WC? Hmmm, I'll leave it thanks."

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Paul Feldman mentioned two watches in his book. I mentioned this some time ago and was told to stop "listening to Feldy". It seems the person who advised me to "stop listening to Feldy" is now suggesting there is a possibilty that there were two watches.

No, only one Maybrick watch, Obs. Dundas was describing a different watch entirely when he said, quite rightly, that there were no JtR markings on it. We don't need two of the buggers.

Do keep up.

Regardless of how many watches there were Mr Dundas repaired Murphy's watches, and when asked couldn't recall the marks scratched into the "Maybrick watch".

Well he wouldn't, would he, or he'd have been the one to make the 'discovery' and you'd all now be accusing him of forging it.

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.

I contend that if the name Maybrick had been in evidence then he would have remembered it. He didn't remember it.

Barely visible to the naked eye; not on a surface Dundas needed to look at anyway; and he'd have done the repair over a year before being asked about it, not just a month or so - which might well explain why he was thinking of a different watch.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Great post Katrup. Post #353 illustrates the points you make to a tee. Your point about the selling of books might well apply here. I brought this up some months ago. Is there another rip off book on the horizon?

Not by me there's not. How very dare you?

Seems you didn't read that post very carefully, or didn't understand the implications for your 1993 bandwagon hoax theory.

Why am I not particularly surprised?

Once again, you see but you do not observe, Observer.

Love,

Caz
X