Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maybrick watch in higher resolution

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

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    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".
    In the diary, 'Sir Jim' very clearly identifies himself as "Jack", and signs off as 'Jack the Ripper', so we would expect whoever made the scratches in the watch to do likewise, whichever came first.

    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.
    Again, this matches the number and the initials of the Whitechapel victims claimed by 'Sir Jim' in the diary. Obviously the engraver could not include the initials of any victim whose name would not have been known to her killer.

    When the engravings were first deciphered, and the five sets of initials identified, the diary had yet to be published, with the details of which victims were identifiable from the text, or which might be conspicuous by their absence from it. So there were several ways in which a modern hoaxer could have made errors when choosing which initials to engrave or not to engrave. Omissions would have been less problematic, but one inclusion too many could have been instantly fatal.
    Last edited by caz; 08-02-2021, 12:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    Arthur Leigh Allen, the Zodiac suspect, owned and wore a Zodiac brandwatch, that was the source behind this fabrication.



    The Baron
    Insightful as ever.

    I'm more intrigued by your choice of moniker on this forum. It is odd seeing an obscure Magna reference. What makes Baron Humbert von Gikkingen so interesting to you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

    I'm not sure if Simon Wood still supports the initials on the wall, if he ever did at all. As RJ Palmer has pointed out, the initials referred to in the Diary could have been anywhere, not just in Kelly's room.

    And I still don't see any initials on the wall.
    Yes, Scott, Simon was famously the first person to ever identify those letters on Kelly's wall and he could see them no problem when they didn't mean anything.

    Miraculously, when they meant too much, he could no longer see them again.

    That happens, I guess.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    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).
    I'm not sure if Simon Wood still supports the initials on the wall, if he ever did at all. As RJ Palmer has pointed out, the initials referred to in the Diary could have been anywhere, not just in Kelly's room.

    And I still don't see any initials on the wall.

    Leave a comment:


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



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    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.
    Last edited by erobitha; 07-30-2021, 06:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    “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/dissertatio...tchreport.html

    I wonder if the 9/3 means anything?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X