My weird thought while reading the purported Maybrick Diary

[ChainzCooper]

Errata,
What are your thoughts on the scratches and the brass particles?
Jordan

[Errata]

Errata,
What are your thoughts on the scratches and the brass particles?
Jordan

Well, it's a little confusing. There was glass covering "the back". I am assuming that the scratches were on the inside of the back cover. on women's watches of the period, the glass was there for a picture to be put behind. Men's watches typically didn't have glass. This would put the scratches behind the glass. On the other hand, I would have thought that scratches behind glass would have fared much better than these did.

The glass would have been on hinges, and there is no way the hinges were made of gold. Brass would have been a likely material, which could result in old brass particles being deposited in recent scratches. No mention is made of gold particles or even flakes which I would have expected after the scratches were made. Now any decent polishing or cleaning of the surface would get rid of the gold, but would have also gotten rid of the brass. If the scratches are genuine, and the watch was routinely maintained and polished, the only way the brass gets in the scratches is from the hinges. If the brass was from the tool used to make the scratches, that too would have been eliminated with a good polishing. Also certain polishing compounds have brass or other metals in them. They are not supposed to be used on metal, but its a possibility.

It could be genuine, or a fake. It could also be genuine in that Maybrick made the scratches, but was not in fact Jack the Ripper. I don't know. My personal opinion based on scant knowledge is that it is unlikely that the scratches were made anytime after 1980, but it could just as easily have been done in the 70's as the 1880's.

[caz]

Hi All,

Just to set the record straight - again - it's a gentleman's dress watch, as all hubby's reference books on the subject clearly indicate, with photos, sizes etc. But anyone with sufficient expertise, who has actually handled the watch in question and has no 'agenda', could confirm this. It's going over very old ground.

It means nothing in any case. If the watch had not been a man's watch, what would that have proved? A serial killer who keeps trophies might arguably prefer to engrave his female victims' initials inside a woman's watch he had obtained for the purpose, rather than deface his own. He's not likely to follow any rule that says he must use a man's watch for his funny little game. So a faker could have used either variety without giving the game away.

I love it how people think they know what the real killer would or would not have done, and therefore where the faker screwed up. There must surely be much better ways of proving the watch was never in Jim's hands.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

But REAL men don't wear dress watches.

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

It's been a few years since I've read the diary or even delved into the pros and cons regarding it's authenticity.

Weirdly, when I was reading the diary when it came out, I was also reading Bram Stoker's "Dracula", which is told by way of 'diary entries' and 'letters'. At the time I first read the Maybrick, I couldn't help but think it was a ficticious book written in the same fashion. Whether new fiction or old fiction or deliberate hoax or not, I look forward to reading more about.

Just wanted to share my little vibe from back in the day.

Hi all

Getting back to the original post in this thread, obviously the use of a diary or a series of letters is an ancient fictional device, so there is that similarity between the Maybrick Diary and the construction of the story in Bram Stoker's Dracula. The use of Diary entries gives the narrative of the "Jack the Ripper" or "Maybrick" Diary a certain power and immediacy. If the document was written subsequent to James Maybrick's death, novels such as Dracula that use letters or diary entries to build the narrative, could have been an influence on whomever wrote the Diary.

Best regards

Chris

[caz]

Caz,

But REAL men don't wear dress watches.

Mike

LOL

REAL men don't murder and mutilate women either. I doubt the ripper was wearing a dress watch while he was on the job, but someone decided he was the type to keep a dress watch with his victims' initials scratched inside - to remind himself of his considerable achievement no doubt, in a man's world.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

I'm with caz. Whether its a mans watch or a womens watch proves nothing.

It was unlikely to have belonged to one of his victims, too expensive..... unless you consider FLO to be a Victim....