One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Observer]

So where does Dundas mention seeing any such repair marks in the watch he thought was sold to Albert?

Love,

Caz
X

It's my turn now. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'll try and answer though. Dundas, will have been repairing a lot of watches at this period of time, it was the man's job. The thing is, unless something distinctive, like "I am Jack", or "James Maybrick" appeared inside one of the watches he's repairing, then he is not going to remember every little initial or date. What is significant is the fact that he never ever saw those words appear in any of the watches he repaired.

[Observer]

Not only that, but they must also be very wary of any markings that they may be blamed for producing during restoration or cleaning.

Yes exactly Mike. Apparently not all jewellers inscribe the date into the inside of the watches they've repaired. In effect you can have very old watches which have had work done on them, and they have nothing inscribed inside the back.

[caz]

Caz:

Oh heck, if it was anything more than a simple one-step process that could've been carried out by anyone who owned a Dremel and a magnifying glass, then I guess there is nobody alive who could possibly have done it!

Well, dear Henry, they'd be pretty old by now if they did the deed more than tens of years ago. I may be wrong, but I think the point about the skill, knowledge and tools involved - not made by me but by a scientist - only applied to anyone attempting to make very recent markings mimic very old ones under professional examination. Anyone who did it several decades ago would not have had the same task, would they?

If it was "complex" we may as well assume it was impossible.

Ooh, sarcasm. Not particularly bright seeing as I haven't suggested the actual task would have been impossible for the right person. But this hoaxer of yours had to have access to the watch or it would have been a physical impossibility. And there is nobody you can put in the frame for a post-1992 fake. It's so easy but also so lame to say it doesn't matter who did it that recently. Without a named suspect to fit the bill and tick all the right boxes it's the same old story. With the diary, Mike Barrett made things childishly simple for all those who like it that way. He 'confessed'. He was a scally. Job done. Lechmere was found with the freshly killed Nichols. He called himself Cross under oath. He lied. Job done. Prime suspect. Nobody else need apply. Sound familiar?

With the watch it's not quite that straightforward but the thinking is on much the same shallow level, if any thinking is involved at all. Bandwagon hoax or conspiracy, no need to dig any deeper for who dunnit in that case. As I say, lame.

It's a shame the dating wasn't given as 'very recent', so that I could see whether Caz would play her ever-reliable gambit: "But if the watch were a recent hoax, wouldn't the hoaxer have made sure to artifically age the scratches?"

Oh I do love these straw man arguments, Henry. They confirm for me the level of your own thinking. My standards are a little higher than that, and I won't be claiming a date for the diary or watch without the evidence - scientific or otherwise - to back it up. You and Ike can date the things as specifically as you like, no doubt at either end of the spectrum, but it won't change a thing. You'll still have a Mr Nobody for your author and your engraver, just like everyone else.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Tbf, Caz, I have left room for the possibility that the watch was not purchased at all, but that it may have well been in the possession of this person or persons in question already.

You mean it could have been engraved by someone before finding its way to Stewarts the Jewellers in Liskard, Wallasey, where Albert bought it? I have no problem with that. In fact I find it to be the only plausible answer.

After Albert and his mates found the scratches, he took the watch back to Stewarts to show them and ask what they knew of its history. Slightly odd thing to do if he knew the scratches were not there when they sold it to him. Even odder if he didn't actually purchase it from Stewarts. I do hope you are not being misled by a certain two-watch theory.

It's not a relatively expensive watch, and many like it would've been commonplace. My family has all kinds of old watches and clocks laying about here and there.

It cost Albert £225 back in 1992. Yes, I believe pocket watches were not hard to come by, but the vast majority would not have been inscribed on the cover with initials, so I do think it's likely that whoever created the scratches already had the watch with its "J O" and used that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Enjoy the view from up there Caz. I have no further questions.

[caz]

Far too much credence is given to what random blokes in lab-coats say, Caz.

Are you a global warming sceptic too, Mike?

Far too much credence was and is still given to what Feldman, Harris or Barrett had to say. About as far from 'random blokes in lab-coats' as you can get, I grant you. But who really knows, much less cares, what qualifications this hapless trio had for their various claims?

How many actual relevant scientists have come out and claimed that the watch was beyond the capability of literally anyone with a desire to fool people?

None. But who is suggesting anything like this? It's easy to score cheap points against arguments that were never made, but it's not a good look and wouldn't be necessary if you had a strong case.

So many hoaxes have this same incorrect rhetoric, that they'd require skill, expertise and talent beyond the average Joe.

Not my rhetoric, Mike. And don't shoot the messenger. I don't put it any stronger than Turgoose did, but at the same time I don't see any suggestion of 'incorrect rhetoric' in his own choice of words on the subject. I'd like to think he knew a fair bit more about it than you or I do, but maybe you know better.

What actual expertise were needed to stick some carvings on an old watch? Let's be honest here, what kind of skills and scientific knowledge was needed?

I don't know. I don't have the right qualifications to comment. I only have the professional opinions of Drs Turgoose and Wild. If you are an expert on the subject you could offer your services in September if you see the watch.

The problem is that we tend to have one talking-head scientist pop up, and we throw ourselves at their feet. I'd be interested to know just how many people who know what they're talking about also feel that the watch is some amazing feat of skill and precision.

Again, who has said it was 'some amazing feat of skill and precision'? You really need to get a grip and try addressing people's actual words. What is the point in ripping into stuff that you have just made up?

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Are you a global warming sceptic too, Mike?

Far too much credence was and is still given to what Feldman, Harris or Barrett had to say. About as far from 'random blokes in lab-coats' as you can get, I grant you. But who really knows, much less cares, what qualifications this hapless trio had for their various claims?



None. But who is suggesting anything like this? It's easy to score cheap points against arguments that were never made, but it's not a good look and wouldn't be necessary if you had a strong case.



Not my rhetoric, Mike. And don't shoot the messenger. I don't put it any stronger than Turgoose did, but at the same time I don't see any suggestion of 'incorrect rhetoric' in his own choice of words on the subject. I'd like to think he knew a fair bit more about it than you or I do, but maybe you know better.



I don't know. I don't have the right qualifications to comment. I only have the professional opinions of Drs Turgoose and Wild. If you are an expert on the subject you could offer your services in September if you see the watch.



Again, who has said it was 'some amazing feat of skill and precision'? You really need to get a grip and try addressing people's actual words. What is the point in ripping into stuff that you have just made up?

Love,

Caz
X

Sorry Caz, did you mean global warming, or climate change, or man-made / anthropogenic climate change, which is a different level of belief altogether? And how much of a percentage of doubt are we entitled to over the precise degree of man-made-ness in the change before we are called 'sceptics'? You see, these things are never so easy, are they?

PS - a growing number of prominent and respected scientists are dissenting from what has been the orthodox or 'consenus' position on climate change over the past two or three decades, and the first I learned of 'denialism' was from eavesdropping on a group of environmental and geological scientists on their way back from a conference at Oxford on a train a few years ago. They had evidently decided not to present their paper because, as one of them put it, "I've never known an atmosphere of such hysterical and nakedly political partisanship! They would've shouted us down!" Another replied sadly, "This is no longer science, this is all politics now, and tribal."

I think maybe what Mike was alluding to was more along the lines that while scientific method, properly applied, may be more or less infallible, when an individual scientist is asked to give a brief examination and form a subjective opinion on something that is not hard and fast science, and that may have involved a deliberate attempt to deceive, then we are entitled to say we want far more analysis and information.

And I'm sure none of us actually disagree on that.

[David Orsam]

The existence of the Maybrick Diary had been revealed to the world via the Liverpool Daily Post some six weeks earlier, on 22 April 1993. There were a number of reports about the Diary in the national papers over the next few days, in April, which mentioned the murder of five prostitutes in 1888. I think it's fair to say that in the early 1990s the generally held view was that Jack the Ripper had murdered the C5 only.

Just to put a bit of flesh on the bones of this post. The Daily Mail of 23 April 1993, in a story about the Maybrick Diary, entitled 'Was THIS man Jack the Ripper?' (i.e. Maybrick), stated (my bold):

"The respected Liverpool cotton merchant was Jack the Ripper. That is expected to be the sensational conclusion of a new book based on a diary allegedly written by him before his own death at the hands of his wife in 1889.

Up to now four men have been prime suspects in the case of the killer who slaughtered five prostitutes in London's East End in 1888 - the Duke of Clarence, failed barrister Montague John Druitt, medical student Severin Klosowski and the Queen's doctor, Sir William Gull."

Not to mention, of course, that anyone in 1993 could have looked up, in virtually any book on JTR, that a police chief stated categorically in 1891 that "the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims -- & 5 victims only".

[Observer]

You mean it could have been engraved by someone before finding its way to Stewarts the Jewellers in Liskard, Wallasey, where Albert bought it? I have no problem with that. In fact I find it to be the only plausible answer. After Albert and his mates found the scratches, he took the watch back to Stewarts to show them and ask what they knew of its history. Slightly odd thing to do if he knew the scratches were not there when they sold it to him. Even odder if he didn't actually purchase it from Stewarts. I do hope you are not being misled by a certain two-watch theory.

The only plausible answer? Ha. Again, you would say that wouldn't you.

The two watch theory is Paul Feldman's. As I said earlier, see Feldman's book page 217 onwards.

Regardless of whether there was one watch, two watches, a dozen watches, Albert Johnston bought a watch from Stewarts the Jewellers in Wallasey. The watch had been cleaned and repaired by a Mr Dundas.

Now, he stated that he had never ever saw the words "I am Jack", or the name "James Maybrick", inscribed into the inside back cover of that watch.

Oh, we are told, he was mistaken regarding the watch in question, and was referring to some other watch he cleaned and repaired.

Now that doesn't wash very well if we wish to determine the truth of the matter.

Albert Johnston noticed that the watch he purchased had something inscribed onto the inside back cover, it is inconceivable that Mr Dundas being a professional watch repairer would have failed to notice those inscriptions. Inconceivable. Regardless of which watch Mr Dundas cleaned and repaired, he never ever saw the name "James Maybrick", or the words "I am Jack" in any of the watches he repaired. If he never ever saw those inscriptions inside the watch's he repaired then there's only one real answer as to how they appeared there.

[Observer]

This thread seems to be stuttering somewhat. I realise that talk of the Maybrick watch in this thread goes against the theme of the thread, however, I'd like to put before you a theory posited by the late Paul Feldman which might link the watch, and the Journal.

Paul Feldman, was convinced that the watch and the journal were linked, and stated that they were either both hoaxes, or both genuine. inscribed into the inside back cover of the watch, are the words "I am Jack" the name "James Maybrick", and the initials of the canonical victims of Jack The Ripper. As well as the aforementioned there is what appears to be a date inscribed into the back cover of the watch. That date, if date it is, is 9/3. Mr Feldman interpreted this as the ninth of March. According to his reasoning this date is consistent with the passage from the journal in which Maybrick writes of an incident in Manchester where he murdered a woman while the weather was damp and cold. He goes on to say that summer will soon be here, the warm weather will do me good. Sound reasoning on Mr Feldmans part? Or another red herring? If Mr Feldmans reasoning is sound then the two are linked, and linked by the same conspirators. Conspirators you might ask. In my opinion yes, for Dundas the watch repairer would surely have detected, and read the inscription in the "Maybrick watch" when he repaired it. In my mind the inscription appeared after it's purchase in 1992. Regarding Mr Dundas, there doesn't seem to be any posters willing to discuss his involvement in the affair. However this doesn't surprise me.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

inscribed into the inside back cover of the watch, are the words "I am Jack" the name "James Maybrick"...

Except it doesn't say "James" Maybrick.

As I have pointed out several times throughout the years it says J N Maybrick, whoever that is.

Wolf.

[Observer]

Indeed it doesn't ! Have just looked at Paul Feldman's book. We're both wrong it says J Maybrick. Page 33 shows a diagram brought to Feldman by Albert Johnston which clearly reads J Maybrick. What difference does it make? Are you implying it doesn't refer to James Maybrick of journal fame?

[David Orsam]

I'm looking at the photographic reproduction in "Inside Story". Here's what I see:

I am Ja [I can't see the ck at the end of the word]

ES CE AC

Then, below those, possibly MK or MN or WN.

I think it's the K or N in MK/MN/WN that Wolf has interpreted as the N in JN because they cut across each other.

The name Maybrick is certainly there, possibly proceeded by a J, but the J is either very oddly straight or at a strange angle.

What I can't see are initials of five victims.

Does it only show four victims or am I missing one?

[Observer]

No all five are there.

[GUT]

Except it doesn't say "James" Maybrick.

As I have pointed out several times throughout the years it says J N Maybrick, whoever that is.

Wolf.

Did James Maybrick have a middle name?