Maybrick watch in higher resolution

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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!) ...

[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.

[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

[Harry D]

“I AM JACK”

Subtlety certainly wasn’t their calling card.

[erobitha]

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

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.

[Pcdunn]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

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