What if the watch is real but the document isn't?

[Graham]

Well, I was, perhaps forlornly, hoping for something of a discussion, but possibly out of the question.

I never suggested that I believed the Diary came from Battlecrease (note the spelling). Whatever it was that Paul Feldman thought had been taken to Liverpool University by some of the workmen, it wasn't the Diary. Feldman never actually discovered what it was, but later came to the conclusion that it wasn't the Diary.

What 'unknown writer' was I supposed to be offering up? I said that there is a slight possibility that Anne had more to do with the Diary's production than she evwer admitted. I also repeated the old tale, which Anne put about, that she found it behind a cupboard and that it had been in her father's possession since 1940. This was never proved, and Anne never went into much more detail.

Barret was a writer?? You what? Ever seen any of his productions? he could hardly sign his name!

And the Watch? You've not given me the benefit of your considered and esteemed opinions regarding this. Don't you have any, then?

Graham

[Mike J. G.]

With the falling-off of discussion on this Forum concerning both the Diary and the Watch, I'd just like to say:

1] I never believed that the Diary was a genuine 'journal' written by James Maybrick. I think there is a slight possibility that it can be dated back to a short time after the Ripper Murders, but so far it has not been possible for forensic science to make an accurate analysis.

2] I never believed that the Diary was conceived and manufactured by Mike Barrett. However, I think, with no real basis and probably erroneously, there might be a slight possibility that his wife had more to do with it than we have so far been led to believe. It could be that it really was passed down to her by her father - we'll never know, but if as some folk still maintain it isn't a modern forgery, then this would seem a most likely route. And Anne Barrett has maintained her strict silence for many years now.

3] Without casting any aspersions, I've always felt that it was a remarkable coincidence that the Watch came to light so soon after the Diary was revealed. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if there is still some missing but highly germane information regarding this, and which has never been made public. But maybe there isn't. Maybe it really was just coincidence.

4] What, precisely, was Robbie Johnson's true role (if he had one, that is) in this saga?

The above are just my thoughts and suspicions, no more, and I'm only writing this because lock-down is now beginning to get on my nerves.....

Graham

I honestly don't believe the "diary" is much older than the date it was miraculously "discovered" on, whichever version of discovery you favour personally.

It didn't originate from Battlecreese, that's for sure. The amount of work done on that building yet it wasn't found sooner? The whole saga of the "found it in the house and took it to the university" story is redundant, as far as I'm concerned.

Whether people choose to believe that Barrett wrote it or not, he's the only name available, besides his wife, with the sheer audacity to try and pull it off, and by offering up an unknown writer, you're just furthering the nonsense of it all, IMO. Barrett was a writer, he was the sort of bloke you'd imagine would try and make a few quid duping the gullible, and he basically fits the description of a snakeskin oil salesman.

There's simply nothing to suggest that it was an old hoax, IMO. Regardless, someone wrote it, and it obviously wasn't James bloody Maybrick.

[Graham]

With the falling-off of discussion on this Forum concerning both the Diary and the Watch, I'd just like to say:

1] I never believed that the Diary was a genuine 'journal' written by James Maybrick. I think there is a slight possibility that it can be dated back to a short time after the Ripper Murders, but so far it has not been possible for forensic science to make an accurate analysis.

2] I never believed that the Diary was conceived and manufactured by Mike Barrett. However, I think, with no real basis and probably erroneously, there might be a slight possibility that his wife had more to do with it than we have so far been led to believe. It could be that it really was passed down to her by her father - we'll never know, but if as some folk still maintain it isn't a modern forgery, then this would seem a most likely route. And Anne Barrett has maintained her strict silence for many years now.

3] Without casting any aspersions, I've always felt that it was a remarkable coincidence that the Watch came to light so soon after the Diary was revealed. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if there is still some missing but highly germane information regarding this, and which has never been made public. But maybe there isn't. Maybe it really was just coincidence.

4] What, precisely, was Robbie Johnson's true role (if he had one, that is) in this saga?

The above are just my thoughts and suspicions, no more, and I'm only writing this because lock-down is now beginning to get on my nerves.....

Graham

[erobitha]

In the 14th century they believed ‘bad air’ was causing the plague that was killing millions across Europe. So the establishments of the day decided quarantine would keep the afflicted safe from the ‘bad air’.
This action went on to save many lives and reduce the contagion of the disease quite considerably. Wrong theory but ultimately the correct result.
Perhaps the focus should be more on Maybrick himself and the watch without the theory of the document and dismissing the watch as some kind of forgery after the fact. The watch science is much more conclusive - it’s just that alone is not enough. You can’t publish a watch either. Maybe we have the right man but our theory to prove is not the right one yet. Maybe time will reveal all.

[Harry D]

There is a much simpler way of looking at this, of course - and one which accords with all of the facts of the case (well, almost all) ...

That it's all a load of bunkum that's fooled the naive and gullible?

[StevenOwl]

There is a much simpler way of looking at this, of course - and one which accords with all of the facts of the case (well, almost all) ...

Oh absolutely Ike, I was simply wondering if Jim as Jack might have carried more weight with Ripperologists if it was the watch that came to light via Albert, rather than the scrapbook via Mike.

[Iconoclast]

I've often found myself wondering what if the watch had come to light instead of the scrapbook. As you say, scientific tests suggests that the scratches are indeed old enough for it to be genuine. Then there's the signature on the watch which actually resembles Maybrick's, and it was brought to the world's attention by someone considerably more credible than Bongo Barrett. I agree that the watch on its own is not enough to point the finger at JM, but it could well be the inspiration behind the scrapbook.

There is a much simpler way of looking at this, of course - and one which accords with all of the facts of the case (well, almost all) ...

[StevenOwl]

I've often found myself wondering what if the watch had come to light instead of the scrapbook. As you say, scientific tests suggests that the scratches are indeed old enough for it to be genuine. Then there's the signature on the watch which actually resembles Maybrick's, and it was brought to the world's attention by someone considerably more credible than Bongo Barrett. I agree that the watch on its own is not enough to point the finger at JM, but it could well be the inspiration behind the scrapbook.

[erobitha]

Whilst it seems most observers are in check mate with regards to the scientific dating of the diary ink and paper of the Maybrick document, the watch seems to be a real spanner in the works for detractors of the "diary". In the 1993 tests, the engravings were classed as being "tens of years" old at least - as the decaying of brass particles in the base of the engravings would be extremely difficult to forge or fake. I use phrase "extremely difficult" because nothing is ever impossible, but the science seems to stack up across all the watch reports - the engravings were not recent to 1993. The "anti-diary" supporters seem to accept that either the document was either a recent forgery (e.g post 1991) or is in fact real.

How did the watch end up in the antiques shop where Albert Johnson purchased it in 1992? What if the watch was "planted" in the antiques shop delibertaley, in the hope that one day an additional artefact would back up the provenance of the forged document? After all, who would believe the watch alone could point the finger at James Maybrick, even though he had effectively confessed via the engraving? The watch alone would not be enough. Hence, the motivation for the document forgery. Let the watch support the diary, but actually the diary was created to support the existence of the watch.

The watch has been a conundrum for many detractors, including Melvin Harris and Martin Fido. The science behind the watch offers an inconvenient truth.

Which leads to the question, who then engraved the watch?

On a side note, William Maybrick, James' father was by trade an engraver. Something James would have some basic knowledge of having been around it most of his childhood.

Just a thought.