Maybrick watch in higher resolution

[JeffHamm]

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

[Scott Nelson]

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.

[Iconoclast]

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!) ...

[erobitha]

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.

[Scott Nelson]

Not to derail this thread subject even more, but I wonder what Robert McLaughlin thought about the so-called initials on the wall.

[caz]

“I AM JACK”

Subtlety certainly wasn’t their calling card.

What did you expect?

I AM THE INVISIBLE MAN ?

I AM ROBBIE JOHNSON ?

Watch reports can be found here, for anyone who wants to know what marks were visible under the experts' microscopes and in which order they were made:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/watchreport.html

I wonder if the 9/3 means anything?

[Harry D]

What did you expect?

I AM THE INVISIBLE MAN ?

I AM ROBBIE JOHNSON ?

What’s the point of initialising the victims’ names if you’re going to telegraph the fact you’re the killer? Might as well left that out altogether. I wonder if the hoaxer himself felt that was too subtle and really needed to ram the point home?

We don’t even know if the killer identified with the moniker “Jack the Ripper”. For all we know he hated it.

Same with the diary. How convenient that an artefact emerges with the killer spilling his proverbial guts and wrapping the greatest murder mystery of the last century up in a neat little bow, all while agreeing with the accepted canon at the time.

[erobitha]

What’s the point of initialising the victims’ names if you’re going to telegraph the fact you’re the killer? Might as well left that out altogether. I wonder if the hoaxer himself felt that was too subtle and really needed to ram the point home?

We don’t even know if the killer identified with the moniker “Jack the Ripper”. For all we know he hated it.

Same with the diary. How convenient that an artefact emerges with the killer spilling his proverbial guts and wrapping the greatest murder mystery of the last century up in a neat little bow, all while agreeing with the accepted canon at the time.

On the matter of the watch, it is hardly a telegraph, was it?

It was inside the casing of the pocket watch. If I was to telegraph to all who I was, I'd pick perhaps a slightly more obvious means than microscopic etchings inside a watch no one may ever find. It's indicative of someone who would enjoy the fact sometime after his death this may or may not be found. I do not believe his intention was for this to be found whilst he was alive.

A for the moniker it was what he was known by most popularly in the end, he is hardly going to give himself a new moniker because the one everyone knew grated him. No one would be disturbed to see etchings written by "I AM DAVE THE KILLER".

I am open to the possibility of a "false confession" which may have become the inspiration of a diary "hoax". However, my inclination is the watch is 100% genuine of that time period (aged brass particles embedded in the base of the engravings and eroded) make the watch very compelling. Robbie Johnson did not meet the Turgoose criteria of "considerable skill and technical expertise". Wild's report is confident enough to place the engravings "...at least several tens of years of old." His only issue was how far back he could comfortably commit, but even we accept the minimum of twenty years - that means pre 1974. It is not part of any "modern" hoax.

The biggest threat has ironically always been timing.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Since you guys like odds and probability...

Assumption. The watch is genuine. At some point in the last century, an unknown and unknowable person is inspired by the watch to forge a diary, and ensconce it under the floorboards of Battlecrease, then exits stage left.

Said diary is found and swiftly purloined by an electrician, who has no knowledge of the watch, and fenced to Bongo, who brings it to international attention. Bongo also has no knowledge of the watch.

Shortly thereafter (given the scale of things), the watches current owner inadvertently discovers the etchings alluding to Maybricks guilt, apparently for the first time since presumably the diary writers observation.

What are the odds of two such events occurring in such proximity to each other, if they're totally unrelated and genuine occurrences?

(Insert sound of Jeff spitting out his tea here)

[erobitha]

Since you guys like odds and probability...

Assumption. The watch is genuine. At some point in the last century, an unknown and unknowable person is inspired by the watch to forge a diary, and ensconce it under the floorboards of Battlecrease, then exits stage left.

Said diary is found and swiftly purloined by an electrician, who has no knowledge of the watch, and fenced to Bongo, who brings it to international attention. Bongo also has no knowledge of the watch.

Shortly thereafter (given the scale of things), the watches current owner inadvertently discovers the etchings alluding to Maybricks guilt, apparently for the first time since presumably the diary writers observation.

What are the odds of two such events occurring in such proximity to each other, if they're totally unrelated and genuine occurrences?

(Insert sound of Jeff spitting out his tea here)

Well if the watch and the scrapbook were found at the same time in the same place, I'd imagine the odds tumble a bit from your scenario.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Well if the watch and the scrapbook were found at the same time in the same place, I'd imagine the odds tumble a bit from your scenario.

Indeed they would. I was working from the position of the watches claimed heritage, because opening the Battlecrease biscuit tin is opening a proverbial can of worms.

If the watch was knocking around pre Eddie Lyons for as long as claimed, and is therefore not connected to the floorboards miracle, what would be the chance in that scenario?

[erobitha]

Indeed they would. I was working from the position of the watches claimed heritage, because opening the Battlecrease biscuit tin is opening a proverbial can of worms.

If the watch was knocking around pre Eddie Lyons for as long as claimed, and is therefore not connected to the floorboards miracle, what would be the chance in that scenario?

This I believe goes to why so many believe the watch to be a hoax. The "timing" seems a little too convenient for many, but obviously not for me.

My faith in the watch is greater than the scrapbook. The science is too compelling.

It does create an uncomfortable truth. The scrapbook is generally regarded as being a modern hoax as it contains some information post 1980s in terms of its public knowledge, or alternatively, it is genuine.

The watch etchings have been scientifically proven to be at least tens of years age (and possibly more) in 1994. That means the watch must have been "hoaxed" pre-1974 at the latest.

So somewhere between 1888 and 1974 a watch was engraved with these marks. In 1992 a scrapbook appears with information that was only public knowledge post-1980s.

Only the genuine scenario can account for both artefacts being created at the same time. The hoax theory cannot support that.

[Iconoclast]

This I believe goes to why so many believe the watch to be a hoax. The "timing" seems a little too convenient for many, but obviously not for me.

My faith in the watch is greater than the scrapbook. The science is too compelling.

It does create an uncomfortable truth. The scrapbook is generally regarded as being a modern hoax as it contains some information post 1980s in terms of its public knowledge, or alternatively, it is genuine.

The watch etchings have been scientifically proven to be at least tens of years age (and possibly more) in 1994. That means the watch must have been "hoaxed" pre-1974 at the latest.

So somewhere between 1888 and 1974 a watch was engraved with these marks. In 1992 a scrapbook appears with information that was only public knowledge post-1980s.

Only the genuine scenario can account for both artefacts being created at the same time. The hoax theory cannot support that.

Indeed, and two points of note:

1) The scrapbook is seen as a hoax largely because that was the initial momentum successfully driven by Melvin Harris and his Committee of Integrity (my arse) in what was a rather self-evidently non-independent review of the case (an independent reviewer would not have been working on their own study of the Whitechapel murders due to be published within a couple of years). Galvanising the likes of Nick "Tunnel Vision" Warren, they just collectively decided they were right and patted each other on the back (cf. the sanctimonious Sugden referenced in my brilliant Society's Pillar). This momentum led the easily-led Sunday Times to declare "Fake!" even though no-one had proved it to be so (and their own newspaper article under that banner being deeply equivocal), and very possibly influenced the irrelevant analysis of Kenneth Rendell (as in, a wealthy man would buy a proper book for his diary, etc.). Times Warner pull out in America, and suddenly everyone's jumping on the hoax bandwagon from which few have jumped off again. Had the scrapbook had a less vociferously biased introduction, we may have had fewer sceptics, but either way James Maybrick's record of his crimes has never had a truly balanced review. Inside Story is probably the least biased analysis, but the vast majority of works on (or touching on) the subject are just polemics from a fixed view.

2) The watch's etchings were first interpreted (around July 1993?) at a time when the Maybrick-Ripper link had already been made so it's perfectly likely that it was the pre-publication newspaper reports of the Victorian scrapbook which enabled the viewers of the watch to be able to decipher what was etched in it. No coincidence required.

ero b, I know that the watch is your main driver for accepting James Maybrick was Jack the Spratt. For me, I would say the main driver lies in the scrapbook itself, late on, a reference to Florence Maybrick's initials left around the room, and - lo and behold - as a consequence of the scrapbook's claims, the 'FM' on Kelly's wall finally coming to light. Simon Wood was no longer a lone voice howling at the moon and - whilst I believe he still occasionally gets out there and works the old larynx on high hills at midnight - he is to be congratulated for spotting what turned out to be evident in the record from at very least Farson (1972) onwards (if not Lacassagne had he or she had an Apple iPhone SE 2020 in 1899).

Ike

[Harry D]

On the matter of the watch, it is hardly a telegraph, was it?

The person's name, an admission of guilt, AND the canonical five's initials for good measure? I'd say so.

It was inside the casing of the pocket watch. If I was to telegraph to all who I was, I'd pick perhaps a slightly more obvious means than microscopic etchings inside a watch no one may ever find.

But it WAS found, and conveniently timed too. The ends justified the means.

It's indicative of someone who would enjoy the fact sometime after his death this may or may not be found.

The hoaxer might've been relying on that.

A for the moniker it was what he was known by most popularly in the end, he is hardly going to give himself a new moniker because the one everyone knew grated him. No one would be disturbed to see etchings written by "I AM DAVE THE KILLER".

My point is why assume the killer would give himself any moniker? Even if he did not write the "Dear Boss" letter, there's no reason to believe he identified himself as "Jack".

I am curious as to why the engraver only picked the five victims. As far as I'm aware, the contemporary press had the Ripper's tally as high as nine or eleven. Therefore, you'd expect an old hoax to reflect that. Wasn't the "canonical five" a relatively modern concept? Unless, of course, the Ripper did indeed only murder those five but I find there's enough evidence to dispute that.

I am open to the possibility of a "false confession" which may have become the inspiration of a diary "hoax". However, my inclination is the watch is 100% genuine of that time period (aged brass particles embedded in the base of the engravings and eroded) make the watch very compelling. Robbie Johnson did not meet the Turgoose criteria of "considerable skill and technical expertise". Wild's report is confident enough to place the engravings "...at least several tens of years of old." His only issue was how far back he could comfortably commit, but even we accept the minimum of twenty years - that means pre 1974. It is not part of any "modern" hoax.

Well, Dr Turgoose did conclude that the age of the engravings could not be proven, and may have been modern made, albeit skilfully done.

[The Baron]

Arthur Leigh Allen, the Zodiac suspect, owned and wore a Zodiac brandwatch, that was the source behind this fabrication.



The Baron