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

[Abby Normal]

Hack the Ripper

hi sam
where ya been?

[caz]

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

Hi Graham,

Coming to this thread late... [I was going to start decorating the main bedroom this week with hubby - but I suspect paint would be better - and hubby's employers have now given him some work to do at home, so I'm back on board for now].

Anyway, I totally agree with you about the 'remarkable coincidence' that was the timing of the watch coming to light, in early June 1993, soon after news of the diary broke - but in fact 4 months before the full text of the diary would be revealed. There is no evidence that the Johnsons had ever met the Barretts, or had any advance knowledge of what James Maybrick as JtR would be claiming about the Whitechapel murders. No advance knowledge that the diary wouldn't quickly go the way of the Hitler Diaries, pulling the watch straight down with it. No advance knowledge that 'Sir Jim' wasn't going to reveal, for example, that he didn't murder Liz Stride. 'I will never claim her as one of mine, and I will never, ever scratch any of my victims' initials in a gold watch'.

But seriously, the bigger coincidence for me is that Albert bought his watch, with the large, ornate 'JO' engraved on the outside back cover, in July 1992, just when Mike Barrett was flogging his diary to the publisher, Robert Smith. The Johnsons had no idea who 'JO' may have been, nor if the watch might already have a provenance which ruled out the possibility that Maybrick had ever had his engraving tools near it. Only after the scratches were revealed, was it learned that the jewellers knew nothing about the watch's past life, and it had come from a complete stranger who had walked in off the street, agreed on a price and flogged it, before walking out again.

As with the scrapbook used for the diary, there was - and still is - no known history to come back and haunt whoever created the artefact. But the Barretts and the Johnsons could not have known that. We know where and when Albert bought his watch. That was easy to establish and is beyond doubt. It has been a very different story with Mike's scrapbook, entirely due to his inability to tell a straight one.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And I don't think Mike even was a journalist in any sense of the word - rather, he liked to interview 'celebrities' and then base his articles around those interviews. And once he'd got his famous word-processor, how do you know that it was Mike who wrote up his notes into an acceptable article, and not the far more literary Anne? Was he an acceptable typist? I repeat - my understanding of Mike is that he wasn't completely illiterate, but his literacy was of a low level.

Ha ha, Graham, your questions above to R.J reminded me of a highly amusing dream I had the other night. Someone came up to me and boasted that his cat could type. He asked if mine could too, so I turned to my cat Monty and asked him, to which he replied: "Yes, I can type." I woke myself up laughing.

But there is a serious aspect to this, because when I was wide awake, it did occur to me that our Monty, bless him, may have been lying.

It seems that R.J flatly rejects the possibility that Mike may have been lying about the mythical auction ticket. Yet he also seems to reject the possibility that the Barretts were being truthful when they both - separately - volunteered the information that Anne had had to 'tidy up' all Mike's published articles to make them fit for submission. A curious thing for either of them to lie about, if Mike had been able to produce his own unaided work to an acceptable standard. He always talked about his wish to be a writer in his own right, and claimed that Anne had only penned the diary because his own handwriting was so bad. Why admit that he couldn't type for toffee either? But far more curious if Anne was trying to bat away suspicions that she had helped her husband create the diary.

Now, here's a little something to take R.J's mind off the watch and his lockdown frustrations for a wee while longer...

Mike Barrett added it, in his own inimitable style, to his copy of his Disability Living Allowance Medical report from February 1996, which he sent to Shirley Harrison. It appears on the page where he had previously signed to confirm the information in his personal statement [handwritten by the examining doctor] was correct. I will attempt to transcribe it exactly:

PS. So what!! I protect the people I love, but no-one will understand but you. Me I go in again in my own time, I owe them, the last time I Blew away a IRA BAstard BRiANS out. He Deverses it ANd I dont feel Guilty. Alougth I admit it HaRNTS Me. Like the DiARy.

TAke care, you get your Money. tRust Me Mike XXXX

Quite apart from the question of why the diary would be haunting Mike if it was his own idea in the first place and he could prove it, there is the question of why there is no mention, anywhere in the report, of the stroke he is meant to have suffered at some point after the diary emerged. The doctor's physical examination of the extent of Mike's disability in February 1996 produced the opinion that it was 100% due to the consequences of a road traffic accident when Mike was 14 years old, causing stiffness to his lower back and right hip, and a much more recent injury to his right wrist. The doctor reports that Mike has a slight limp in his right leg, and while there have been episodes of 'altered awareness', several blackouts going back 11 years and several more recent dizzy spells, the doctor finds him 'fully mentally competent', with no evidence of 'neurological deficit'. Mike himself [for what it's worth] tells the doctor he has used a walking stick for years, due to pain in his right leg, and claims to have pain in his back and right hip.

Incidentally, the examination took place at 11am, while the various comments Mike added to the report later for Shirley's benefit, may have been written under the influence for all I know.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Juat to return very briefly to what passes as reality on this particular forum; if, as it seems to have been suggested, Robbie Johnson himself was responsible for the scratches in the Watch, then when did he do it? From what I've gathered, Albert Johnson didn't broadcast his purchase of the Watch, and seems to have kept it in a drawer for some time prior to taking it to the University to show to his workmates. Prior to that, it seems he had kept it in a drawer at home for some months. It was only when he was examining it at the University that the scratches were noticed for the first time. I can't help but feel that, if Robbie Johnson was responsible for the scratchings, then it must have been with the collusion of Albert.
And Albert, it would seem, was the very model of honesty and propriety - which I believe. Now that Caz is back in town, maybe she could offer comments regarding this?

Hi again Graham,

Just noticed this one. I can't really add anything because your own observations are much like my own. It does seem to me that in order for anyone to accuse Robbie of being knowingly involved in a hoax, they would have to believe his brother Albert was, at the very least, a liar. The only alternative would be to suggest that Albert was considerably more gullible than anyone Robbie was hoping to con, or so muddle-headed, that he totally forgot about showing his brother the watch and where he kept it, and was completely persuaded by Robbie's later reaction, that it was the first he had heard of Albert buying a gold watch, let alone what was inside it.

I believe Robbie was serving the last few days for a drugs offence when Albert bought the watch. Albert always said it was an investment for his little granddaughter Daisy, and he did eventually leave it to her. Curious, if he suspected for one second that his brother could have been responsible for turning Daisy's gift of an attractive gold dress watch into the fake souvenir of a Victorian maniac. It just doesn't fit with the Albert I knew. R.J speculated that the watch was not bought with Daisy in mind at all, but as a welcome home present for Robbie when he got out of jail. But that would make a liar out of Albert and his equally delightful wife Val, so it's all rather tacky and unpleasant. The finger doesn't just linger over Robbie, because he makes an easy scapegoat. We end up with two nests of forgers, hatching their plans to lay their own golden egg.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

This tends to imply that you don't fully grasp what science is or how it's used.

So far as I know, the watch has not been scientifically proven to be anything other than a curious addition to an already silly story involving a cotton merchant who apparently often frequented post offices for a jar of ale while penning his letters, according to Ike, lol.

Much like the pages of a faked diary can be artificially aged, the scratches/marking on said watch can also be artificially or even accidentally aged. To deny this is what I truly find ironic. The basic lack of understanding of science on these forums is startling.

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of self-improvement with regards to understanding words and definitions - in particular what the word "science" means. I took your advice and found that according to Oxford English Dictionary (other dictionaries are available) and it concludes "The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something; knowledge as a personal attribute. Now archaic and rare". More words for me to learn.

Passive agressive banter aside, this type of forgery as you suggest wiith regards to the watch is near impossible to replicate without expert knowledge and expensive machinery to place aged brass particles (do you know how big a particle is? Not very big) into the base of engravings. Perhaps the lab had aged brass particles flying around the room which somehow on the gust of wind found their way into the engravings by pure coincidence and accident. In which case it can't be a very good lab. But by all accounts these are world-class in their field of knowledge. But still, Robbie Johnson might have had the brainwave himself and dusted down his old school microscope kit and did it himself. Which is not possible scientifically and certainly most likely outside of Robbie's own many skills.

So the question is, if you believe the particles could be faked - how? The watch wasn't sold at the time, by Albert's own choice and he was offered serious money. So why fake it? Motivation is usually money, and many seem to think that was Robbie's motivation, but money never came. Method would have to be by someone so skilled that Robbie would have had to pay alot of money to convince this was a good idea to do on his behalf. But the method only matters if the motivation can be achieved. Nobody with that kind of skill would do it for a laugh or a favour.

It remains an inconvenient truth, and just because you don't like the timing doesn't make the science any less valid. But then, I have only just learned what science means. What do I know?

[Iconoclast]

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of self-improvement with regards to understanding words and definitions - in particular what the word "science" means. I took your advice and found that according to Oxford English Dictionary (other dictionaries are available) and it concludes "The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something; knowledge as a personal attribute. Now archaic and rare". More words for me to learn.

Passive agressive banter aside, this type of forgery as you suggest wiith regards to the watch is near impossible to replicate without expert knowledge and expensive machinery to place aged brass particles (do you know how big a particle is? Not very big) into the base of engravings. Perhaps the lab had aged brass particles flying around the room which somehow on the gust of wind found their way into the engravings by pure coincidence and accident. In which case it can't be a very good lab. But by all accounts these are world-class in their field of knowledge. But still, Robbie Johnson might have had the brainwave himself and dusted down his old school microscope kit and did it himself. Which is not possible scientifically and certainly most likely outside of Robbie's own many skills.

So the question is, if you believe the particles could be faked - how? The watch wasn't sold at the time, by Albert's own choice and he was offered serious money. So why fake it? Motivation is usually money, and many seem to think that was Robbie's motivation, but money never came. Method would have to be by someone so skilled that Robbie would have had to pay alot of money to convince this was a good idea to do on his behalf. But the method only matters if the motivation can be achieved. Nobody with that kind of skill would do it for a laugh or a favour.

It remains an inconvenient truth, and just because you don't like the timing doesn't make the science any less valid. But then, I have only just learned what science means. What do I know?

Very good, erobitha - made me chuckle.

Ike

[miakaal4]

Would anyone have bothered with the watch without the diary? If the watch surfaced alone we might not even know it exists. I personally believe both the watch and the Diary are real. I also believe in the old adage, "If you can throw enough mud some will stick." Once more both are being sent into that limbo which reads, "Is no longer widely believed, or was undermined by, " then it joins the ranks in obscurity. It is wrong to jump to conclusions in any direction. Experts or should I say very experienced people, say both articles are old. Normally that would be cool. But if the Diary is old it becomes more problematic to diss. So it "must" be modern lets spend some time discussing that shall we? No. Because it is a distraction caused by people who don't want Maybrick in the frame. Why? Who knows. But the truth will always be buried if it's rubbished enough.

[Scott Nelson]

. I personally believe both the watch and the Diary are real.

Do you mean they both belonged to James Maybrick?

[miakaal4]

Do you mean they both belonged to James Maybrick?

Yes. I cannot see why anyone would frame him, or forge them both to frame him.

[Scott Nelson]

Then, do you think Maybrick had any enemies?

[miakaal4]

Who knows? A disgruntled husband, business rivals.

[Scott Nelson]

A playwright and a brother out on a lark?

[Mike J. G.]

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of self-improvement with regards to understanding words and definitions - in particular what the word "science" means. I took your advice and found that according to Oxford English Dictionary (other dictionaries are available) and it concludes "The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something; knowledge as a personal attribute. Now archaic and rare". More words for me to learn.

Put your handbag away, mate.

Passive agressive banter aside, this type of forgery as you suggest wiith regards to the watch is near impossible to replicate without expert knowledge and expensive machinery to place aged brass particles (do you know how big a particle is? Not very big) into the base of engravings. Perhaps the lab had aged brass particles flying around the room which somehow on the gust of wind found their way into the engravings by pure coincidence and accident. In which case it can't be a very good lab. But by all accounts these are world-class in their field of knowledge. But still, Robbie Johnson might have had the brainwave himself and dusted down his old school microscope kit and did it himself. Which is not possible scientifically and certainly most likely outside of Robbie's own many skills.

See, you say that you understand how science works, then you post that. As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the watch wasn't forged, in fact, the last I read on it was that it wasn't possible to date it accurately. I've seen nothing to suggest that the watch would need to be replicated with expert knowledge and expensive machinery, that's basically down to cherry-picking pieces of the existing analysis because it's what you'd prefer to believe. That's about as far from science as squeezy-cheese is to dairy.

"On the basis of the evidence...especially the order in which the markings were made, it is clear that the engravings pre-date the vast majority of superficial surface scratch marks...the wear apparent on the engravings, evidenced by the rounded edges of the markings and 'polishing out' in places, would indicate a substantial age...whilst there is no evidence which would indicate a recent (last few years) origin...it must be emphasised that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings. They could have been produced recently, and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process...many of the features are only resolved by the scanning electron microscope, not being readily apparent in optical microscopy, and so, if they were of recent origin, the engraver would have to be aware of the potential evidence available from this technique, indicating a considerable skill and scientific awareness"

Ironically, the same was said of the Mussolini diaries, which were written and aged using the most obvious way, artificially and in an oven, IIRC, and they indeed fooled the many "experts" who initially reviewed them, and lest we forget that the Mussolini diaries were afforded far more analysis than the so-called Maybrick watch, which can't even be traced back to James.

So the question is, if you believe the particles could be faked - how? The watch wasn't sold at the time, by Albert's own choice and he was offered serious money. So why fake it? Motivation is usually money, and many seem to think that was Robbie's motivation, but money never came. Method would have to be by someone so skilled that Robbie would have had to pay alot of money to convince this was a good idea to do on his behalf. But the method only matters if the motivation can be achieved. Nobody with that kind of skill would do it for a laugh or a favour.

That Albert believed it could be genuine doesn't lend any credence to it actually being genuine, surely you understand this. Are you saying that the initials couldn't have been aged deliberately? You're sincerely asking me to explain how it could have been faked? This has been discussed before. Simply using an old tool with which to carve the initials would suffice, as far as I can recall. The deposits are then left inside the carvings and the eventual polishing that happened would render any proper conclusion in the air, which is precisely what happened.

Here's another reminder about how science works: if you want to prove that something is so, you do it. So far, nobody has proven that the watch is a genuinely old artifact containing genuinely old carvings, much less that they're carvings pertaining to the Ripper killings, much less that they were carved by Jim on a watch owned by Jim.

Nobody on this earth need prove that they aren't the real deal.

It remains an inconvenient truth, and just because you don't like the timing doesn't make the science any less valid. But then, I have only just learned what science means. What do I know?

What you should know is the obvious fact that science is about proving a positive, surely. Whether you actually fully grasp this simple concept is open to debate, maybe that's the inconvenient truth here, fella.

[Mike J. G.]

Very good, erobitha - made me chuckle.

Ike

Good to see you've still got a support group on here, mate. Y'all need each other like the diary needs a provenance. Desperately!

[Iconoclast]

They could have been produced recently, and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process...many of the features are only resolved by the scanning electron microscope, not being readily apparent in optical microscopy, and so, if they were of recent origin, the engraver would have to be aware of the potential evidence available from this technique, indicating a considerable skill and scientific awareness

Just to save me the hassle of looking up something you appear to have abridged, could you clarify for us all what is represented by the ellipsis, please?

I'm sure it was nothing, but it does not to be clarified for the avoidance of any doubt as to what was originally said (a lesson, I believe, much taught by Lord Orsam himself back in the days before his dramatic resignation from the Casebook to spend more time with his family). On an entirely grammatical point, would I be right in saying that an ellipsis starts and ends with a space? (Just asking for a friend.)

The main thrust of your argument around the embedding of aged particles to be later 'discovered' and 'dated' to many decades ago is that those scientists [see what I did there? - used your term to set up an argument against your position] whose speciality was metallurgy made pointless assessments on age [which was the objective of the exercise and what they were being paid to deliver] as they were so desperate to provide the client with a positive outcome that they completely forgot to add "thanks for the cheque ... but, mind, any idiot could also do it with an old school compass and a lot of rags".

I deeply distrust any argument that contradicts specialist opinion - not because I believe specialists to always be correct but because I suspect it is more likely that facile retorts are more likely to come from a deeply biased perspective.

PS The Maybrick signature on the watch is an extremely good match for the known Maybrick signature on his wedding licence. Is there any need for us to explore how that was possible or should we just conveniently ignore it in the same self-serving way you did (despite supposedly seeking evidence for or against)?

Ike