Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maybrick watch in higher resolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

    OK, thanks Ike. So the doctors and police missed the initials because the room lighting was insufficient, except for a photographer's flash.
    Completely feasible. Crime scene photography was in its infancy, they would have not known what to look for in the photos such as this. They were more interested in a record of the murder itself. The room was dark by all accounts. The windows were caked in grime and were inside the courtyard - where very little light would get through. The entrance was in the passage itself, which blocked natural sunlight. Blood darkens when it dries. Amongst general grime how would you notice unless you were looking for it?

    They were not CSI Whitechapel - they just did not think to examine in any great detail. I think I would want to get out of that room as quickly as I could as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

    OK, thanks Ike. So the doctors and police missed the initials because the room lighting was insufficient, except for a photographer's flash.
    The initials were either not there or were observed and not commented upon or were observed and commented on but it never made the record or they were there and no-one saw them. I don't know which was the correct version, of course, but I can explain the last possibility by the further possibility that the initials were only subsequently observable in a photograph because it required use of a bright, brief flash.

    We could call this possibility theory (Abe, look away now!) ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    On the subject of the police and the doctors 'not seeing anything', you should add the inquest jury as I believe they were taken there to inspect the scene. You should also think about how much light was naturally available in Kelly's room to see anything on the walls (assuming anyone could take their eyes off the bloodstained bed to see anything unusual about the walls) and therefore how it might be that we can see the 'FM' but those there did not appear to have done so (or certainly didn't appear to say so if they had). This question was answered here on the Casebook many years ago, and is incredibly simple: the photographer was the only person who used flash, and that's how the letters were highlighted. As soon as the flash had passed, so had the light required to properly note what may or may not have been on the unfortunate Kelly's wall.
    OK, thanks Ike. So the doctors and police missed the initials because the room lighting was insufficient, except for a photographer's flash.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    I would agree your eyesight might not be a a good as it once was. For example you have missed the double loop of the upper part of the K in Maybrick - it is definitely there.

    This is an enhancement of what is available in the public domain online but obviously access to the original image or even new images would be better.
    ha ha! You're probably right. I'm not doubting what others see, and trying to decide what might be part of the letter and what looked sort of like wear and tear is a bit of a guessing game without having the actual item (and better glasses in my case). Mostly I was just trying to locate where things were, and I'm sure I could have left parts of some letters out. I'm not sure what you mean by a "double loop", but I can sort of see a circle thing that might be extending off the upper diagonal arm of the K? I wasn't sure if that was part of the K or not, as it looks much lighter than what I filled in, but scratches are not pen marks, so that might not be an issue. I can't see two loops, but that doesn't mean they're not there, more likely it means my glasses need renewing.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    “I AM JACK”

    Subtlety certainly wasn’t their calling card.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    Nice image erobitha, thanks for sharing.

    It's been a long time since I've seen the watch. I know that the initials of the C5 are supposed to be there, but for the life of me I can't find all of them. I've tried to colour in some of the scratches, and can easily see the Maybrick (in orange), CE (Catherine Eddowes), AC (Annie Chapman), and the N interposed in Maybrick (Polly Nichols) but can't see a P or M beside it (all in red).

    I can see an isolated C (dark green) and to the right of it either ar, or maybe am if the light green bit isn't just random scratches, but those don't correspond to any of the C5. On the right, in blue, maybe WRR or WKR? If the third letter (2nd R) is considered random wear and tear, is what looks like maybe W supposed to be the M and that's the MK for Kelly? There were some random, probably wear and tear marks, on the left (yellow) that appeared about as distinct as the more definite letters, but highlighting them hasn't helped me see anything there, except maybe a lower case squarish b and near the bottom a capitol F (presuming the squiggly bits are not intentional marks).

    Anyway, I was wondering, are the blue bits considered to be the MK? Are the C and AR/AM thought to mean anything? And I mistaken and there's no ES (LS?) for Stride? If there is, could someone point it out for me. It's probably right in front of me, but I'm not seeing it.

    Thanks.

    - Jeff

    Click image for larger version  Name:	watch.jpg Views:	0 Size:	197.7 KB ID:	763673
    I would agree your eyesight might not be a a good as it once was. For example you have missed the double loop of the upper part of the K in Maybrick - it is definitely there.

    This is an enhancement of what is available in the public domain online but obviously access to the original image or even new images would be better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pcdunn
    replied
    Re the "Ja Maybrick" signature: Victorian men often abbreviated their first names. Sometimes you'll see "Chas." for "Charles", or "Jas." for "James".

    My grandfather would sign "C.W. for his first and middle name, and then sign his surname.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    the light green is supposed to be part of a very faint message "I am Jack". It continues across and the "K" is what you have in sky blue. The rest of the light blue is presumably "M.K."

    Here's the diagram produced by the watch's owner if you're interested

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Albert Johnson's sketch.JPG
Views:	255
Size:	35.5 KB
ID:	763675
    Thanks RJ! I can see a J just above the stamped 2 and 7 in the number, for the "I am Jack", but not an I or the ac. But, of course, images are never as good as viewing the real thing, even high res ones.

    As I look more, I can see AM, just under the "am" in "I am Jack" and above the upswing tail of the e for Ce (Eddowes) as well (but that's not listed on the owner's diagram, so could just be an artifact).

    Still can't see the ES or some of the others indicated, but again, images can be like that, and my eyes aren't as good as they used to be.

    Anyway, much appreciated.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    the light green is supposed to be part of a very faint message "I am Jack". It continues across and the "K" is what you have in sky blue. The rest of the light blue is presumably "M.K."

    Here's the diagram produced by the watch's owner if you're interested

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Albert Johnson's sketch.JPG
Views:	255
Size:	35.5 KB
ID:	763675

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Nice image erobitha, thanks for sharing.

    It's been a long time since I've seen the watch. I know that the initials of the C5 are supposed to be there, but for the life of me I can't find all of them. I've tried to colour in some of the scratches, and can easily see the Maybrick (in orange), CE (Catherine Eddowes), AC (Annie Chapman), and the N interposed in Maybrick (Polly Nichols) but can't see a P or M beside it (all in red).

    I can see an isolated C (dark green) and to the right of it either ar, or maybe am if the light green bit isn't just random scratches, but those don't correspond to any of the C5. On the right, in blue, maybe WRR or WKR? If the third letter (2nd R) is considered random wear and tear, is what looks like maybe W supposed to be the M and that's the MK for Kelly? There were some random, probably wear and tear marks, on the left (yellow) that appeared about as distinct as the more definite letters, but highlighting them hasn't helped me see anything there, except maybe a lower case squarish b and near the bottom a capitol F (presuming the squiggly bits are not intentional marks).

    Anyway, I was wondering, are the blue bits considered to be the MK? Are the C and AR/AM thought to mean anything? And I mistaken and there's no ES (LS?) for Stride? If there is, could someone point it out for me. It's probably right in front of me, but I'm not seeing it.

    Thanks.

    - Jeff

    Click image for larger version

Name:	watch.jpg
Views:	265
Size:	197.7 KB
ID:	763673

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

    But look at Erobitha"s post #36 on the "Whitechapel Murders in Colour" thread. Do you see any initials on the wall? I don't. Neither did the doctors or police at the scene.
    Hi Scott,

    As ero b has already noted, his #47 shows the FM far clearer, but nevertheless, I could still discern them in #36 even though it was very difficult. If you've ever seen the originals which were first published in the mid-1890s I think (in France?), you'd struggle to make out the 'FM' but you wouldn't struggle from Farson (1972) onwards so I guess you'd have to ask yourself how on earth they appeared and then stayed there in every subsequent version (not simply the version Feldman had analysed in 1992 or 1993).

    On the subject of the police and the doctors 'not seeing anything', you should add the inquest jury as I believe they were taken there to inspect the scene. You should also think about how much light was naturally available in Kelly's room to see anything on the walls (assuming anyone could take their eyes off the bloodstained bed to see anything unusual about the walls) and therefore how it might be that we can see the 'FM' but those there did not appear to have done so (or certainly didn't appear to say so if they had). This question was answered here on the Casebook many years ago, and is incredibly simple: the photographer was the only person who used flash, and that's how the letters were highlighted. As soon as the flash had passed, so had the light required to properly note what may or may not have been on the unfortunate Kelly's wall.

    Assuming it was Kelly, of course ...

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Yabs View Post
    Hi ero.

    Nice work on the photo enhancement.
    I agree there is a similarity, perhaps in the ‘K but I don’t think the other individual letters look similar.
    The ‘Y’ for example has a very small dropping curve in the handwritten signature, yet he has bothered to engrave a longer different curve onto the watch, which considering the extra effort needed to engrave, seems odd.
    The engraver is clearly not going for a nice aesthetic so why not write the ‘Y as you would by hand?
    Although I do think there is a similar untidiness to both signatures if that makes sense.
    Anyone who has ever done any form of engraving will tell you it requires an incredible level of dexterity, so it can never be exact. It is never exact when we even write out signatures repeatedly by pen on paper. What you need to look for are casual similarities. In this case, I refer to a double loop on the K. This is one such example if you see close enough there is a double a loop on the top part of the K in both photos. That is very similar.

    The lower case A B R I C to me do look very similar. Bearing in mind an etching tool is like a needle, you won't get the nuance of a nib on the end of a pen using ink to paper.

    The M is the most interesting to me, as I see J and M as being very similar to the licence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    Hi ero.

    Nice work on the photo enhancement.
    I agree there is a similarity, perhaps in the ‘K but I don’t think the other individual letters look similar.
    The ‘Y’ for example has a very small dropping curve in the handwritten signature, yet he has bothered to engrave a longer different curve onto the watch, which considering the extra effort needed to engrave, seems odd.
    The engraver is clearly not going for a nice aesthetic so why not write the ‘Y as you would by hand?
    Although I do think there is a similar untidiness to both signatures if that makes sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

    But look at Erobitha"s post #36 on the "Whitechapel Murders in Colour" thread. Do you see any initials on the wall? I don't. Neither did the doctors or police at the scene.
    Actually the higher res version supplied to me by Ozzy did see to show the initials a little more clearly. I would advise people to check the second version I did more carefully.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    I feel very similar about the 'M' in the 'FM' on Mary Kelly's wall. How uncannily its second half rises, just as it does in the scrapbook. As the 'FM' was published as early as 1972 (Farson), the hoaxer must have seen them and worked backwards to Florence Maybrick therefore James Maybrick and then used the particular format of the 'M' on Kelly's wall throughout the scrapbook. Brilliant!
    But look at Erobitha"s post #36 on the "Whitechapel Murders in Colour" thread. Do you see any initials on the wall? I don't. Neither did the doctors or police at the scene.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X