New Book: The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper

[caz]

Was it not a woman's watch Caz?!

No, but I'm not sure why that would be an issue, since the JO indicates someone other than James Maybrick.

I don't know why this Maybrick chooses randomly picked objects for his precious confessions, a woman's watch here, a photo album there, a wall here, an arm there..

It must have been a difficult time for cotton merchants back then


The Baron

You are addressing the wrong person here.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Thanks, I'll drop him a line at JTR Forums and see if he can clarify his statements.

[erobitha]

Hi Jay. That, of course, should read the Wood Street shop.

Ralph Samuel's business listed 59 employees in 1850. It was a large outfit and there was a certain amount of mass production.

The following link will tell you all you ever need to know about the division of labor in the 19th Century watchmaking business.

English watchmaking (vintagewatchstraps.com)

Even if Samuel employed watch finishers and assembled the final product, which is far from proven, he wasn't a jeweler's shop. The watch would be sent back to one of the Verity watchmakers, or to the jeweler's shop that commissioned the order. How does knowing one step of the manufacturing process tell us anything about who bought the watch back in 1848?

If you talk to Paul Butler, you might ask him to clarify the contradictions in his statements. Thanks.

Thanks for the link RJ. You might not have noticed that I already shared that link on my own blog post.

It appears that the watch and case were not assayed in the same city. The watch was hallmarked as being assayed in London. The case was most likely assayed in Chester. This means the case was most likely not part of the watch itself when it was sent for assaying.

Which means it was most likely added later. Possibly years later.

As for Paul Butler, I am aware of who he is, but should you wish to speak to him I suggest you make your own arrangements as I have no clue how to contact him.

[rjpalmer]

I would hate to think that I inadvertently moved Wood's shop 25 meters closer to Maybrick's childhood home.

Hi Jay. That, of course, should read the Wood Street shop.

Ralph Samuel's business listed 59 employees in 1850. It was a large outfit and there was a certain amount of mass production.

The following link will tell you all you ever need to know about the division of labor in the 19th Century watchmaking business.

English watchmaking (vintagewatchstraps.com)

Even if Samuel employed watch finishers and assembled the final product, which is far from proven, he wasn't a jeweler's shop. The watch would be sent back to one of the Verity watchmakers, or to the jeweler's shop that commissioned the order. How does knowing one step of the manufacturing process tell us anything about who bought the watch back in 1848?

If you talk to Paul Butler, you might ask him to clarify the contradictions in his statements. Thanks.

[rjpalmer]

Just as a point of note, Ralph Samuel's Liverpool workshop was 300 metres, not yards away from his childhood home. Not that there is much in it, but I'm all for improving our accuracy.

300 meters is 328 yards. I'm curious. Did you walk this distance with a surveyor's wheel to insure which estimate is more accurate?

I would hate to think that I inadvertently moved Wood's shop 25 meters closer to Maybrick's childhood home. Those 25 meters might have made the coincidence even more startling.

[erobitha]

Just as a point of note, Ralph Samuel's Liverpool workshop was 300 metres, not yards away from his childhood home. Not that there is much in it, but I'm all for improving our accuracy.

People from all over the country would commission Ralph Samuel to make a case for their watch. He didn't make watches. Where is the mystery in this? In all likelihood, the watch was sent to Samuel not long after it was made to have the case applied in Liverpool. Which Verity made the watch has never been clear, and I have also stated that in my blog post on the matter. How can you make a case for a watch without seeing if it fits? I struggle to believe he simply made a case and did not physically attach the watch to the case himself (or most likely one of his workers). Happy to be proven wrong.

We know Samuel had his cases assayed in either Chester or London, and on the London items, they are accompanied by a leopard head punch. It's my belief that the case was attached to the watch in Liverpool, 300 metres from James Maybrick's childhood home. If someone commissioned a custom engine to be built by Toyota at a workshop 300 metres away from someone who was later to have been reported to have graffitied that exact same engine with his name, I would deem that as being interesting.

I have never once claimed it was a gift for Maybrick or he was given it as a heirloom. He could have stolen it, for example; I have no idea at this stage. I just find the close proximity of these two events intriguing. Samuel's workshop could have been miles away from Maybrick's childhood home. It wasn't.

[rjpalmer]

So here we are.

The watch is a Verity, but according to Mr. Sheehan, it could not have been made by the Liverpool watchmaker, Henry Verity, because he didn't start making and selling watches until 1869 --over twenty years too late.

This is correct. Henry Verity, born in Lancaster around 1846/7, can be found in both the 1871 and 1881 UK census returns, identified as a watchmaker.

We can rule him out, and if we accept Mr. Sheehan's research, the Verity in question must have been in Leeds, some 75 miles from Maybrick's family home.

It's not that easy, though.

According to Paul Butler, who I suspect is Jay's email informant, the serial number on the watch and the serial number on the case match--showing they were originally put together at the same time. They belong together.

However, also according to Paul Butler--on what authority I don't currently know--the watch workings are stamped Verity-Lancashire.

Since neither Leeds nor Rothwell are, or ever were, in Lancashire this would seem to rule out Henry of Hunslet and Henry of Rothwell.

So now we are back to theorizing that the watch workings were manufactured by Henry Verity of Lancaster sometime after 1869, which means the watch IS a composite, put together at some later date using two or more watches.

Yet apparently this can't be true, either, due to the serial numbers supposedly matching. If it was a 'composite' they wouldn't match.

Something has to be wrong somewhere in the claims being made by Mr. Butler.

Either the report of the stamp on the case Verity-Lancashire is wrong, or the claim that the serial numbers match is wrong.

Or there is another Verity we don't know about which appears to be very unlikely.

What other explanation is there?

[rjpalmer]

I'd like to repost something from the archives. I'll later add some commentary.

--

Michael V. Sheehan
Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:42 pm:
________________________________________

Hello All, I'm a new poster to the boards and a collector of antique watches especially English watches.

I believe that the basic questions regarding this watch have never been asked.

1. Is the watch a genuine or a composite artifact?

There are many "antique" watches reassembled from a movement and case that were never previously associated. Does the serial number on the movement, dustcover (if still extant) and case match?

The serial number of the case is stamped at the 6 o'clock position in the photo and appears to be 1288 or 1266. If the serial numbers do not match, then the watch was assembled from parts of several different watches. Unless the watchmaker's name is stamped on the case (unusual but not unheard of) we will never know who the maker is. If the watch and case are integral, the next question is:

2. What do we know about the maker?

The maker is unlisted in Vol.1 of Watchmakers & Clockmakers of the World by G.H. Baillie which means that he was not active before 1825. Vol. 2, of the same work, by Brian Loomes (2nd. ed.) which continues and supplements Baillie has three listings for watchmakers named Verity.

Henry Verity of Lancaster who was also a jeweler.
William Verity of Hunslet (Leeds)
William Verity of Rothwell (near Leeds)

We know the beginning dates of business for each of the makers listed above from Loomes. Henry V. 1869; William V. of Hunslet 1866; and William V. of Rothwell circa 1850. I have not seen the hallmark on the watch (it's not in the photo available to me) but I trust that it was diligently researched and that the date 1847/8 is correct. This would mean (assuming there is only one hallmark on the watch case and, if several, that they agree) that the watch could only have come from the shop of William Verity of Rothwell near Leeds.

3. What can the maker tell us about who bought the watch.

Verity is not a well-known or important maker. He is a regional maker producing products for his locality and it is very unlikely that his products would have any currency outside his local area.
Anyone buying a good watch, i.e. one appropriate for the upper-middle class, would be buying from northern makers such as Jos. Johnson or Tobias.

If Shirley Harris is correct (!), it was bought for or by a woman (see The Mammoth Book of JTR Carrol & Graff N.Y. 2001; p. 220) Assuming it was bought new, it was purchased when James was 10 yrs old so, if it belonged to James Maybrick, it would have been purchased by his family and handed down as an heirloom. He had no sisters, therefore it is likely it was bought by or for Susannah Maybrick, James' mother. This begs the question, Why would the Maybricks living in Liverpool go all the way to Rothwell to buy a watch? There were certainly an abundance of watchmakers in Liverpool and a watch, being a luxury for James parents, would be something meant to last. It would have been bought new and serviced regularly to keep it in working order. Hence the markings.

[rjpalmer]

I am getting closer all the time. I can place the watch within 300 metres of him.

Hi Jay.

I'm sorry to give you pushback, but this isn't true.

What you've done is to show that the case maker lived in Central Liverpool, on Wood Street, roughly 300 yards from Church Street--Maybrick's childhood home.

This might sound impressive, but let's take a look at Ralph Samuel's advertisements. This is from a newspaper in Coventry and gives some insight into Samuel's operation, which had been established in the 1840s.



Note that Mr. Samuel's states that "he strictly confines himself to Watch Case Making."

He does not make the watches themselves; he simply supplies the case to watch makers, working through an agent in Coventry, which is east of Birmingham.

His watch cases could have been used by any watchmakers throughout the UK--the advert dates to 1855, but there's little reason to think this wouldn't also have been true in the 1840s. And other information confirms this.

Your argument is along the lines that a man is likely to have owned a Toyota, because the Toyota's radiator was built at factory near his home, when in fact the Toyota was assembled and sold at a different location.

So, the real question is, where was the watchmaker Verity located? And where did he sell his goods in 1847/48?

This question is difficult to answer, as I will show in another post. The Wikipedia article on Maybrick claims it was in Rothwell, West Yorkshire (just east of Leeds).

But I'm not sure this is accurate, either. There's a mystery to it.

[erobitha]

Timothy Dundas, the horologist who cleaned and repaired this watch in 1992, has sworn an affidavit which states that the 'Ripper scratches' were not in that watch when he worked on it. And in working on it he used the standard watchmaker's magnifying loupes, which show up every scratch and abrasion.







Well you don't have to, dating scratches on a piece of metal is not a definitive science, you cannot even trace the watch back to Maybrick with any degree of certainty.



The Baron

The same Tim Dundas that claimed in 1994 that the watch he repaired had a white face with Verity in black lettering on it? That Tim Dundas?

It is true we cannot put the watch in Maybrick's possession as of yet, but I am getting closer all the time. I can place the watch within 300 metres of him, but yes, I have not proved he actually possessed it.

[The Baron]

The engravings were almost certainly decades old in 1993 - minimum. Embedded brass particles in the base of the engravings - embedded. Polished edges of layers signify ageing. Scratches that overlap the "Maybrick" scratches. The K matches a number of examples across a number of years.

Timothy Dundas, the horologist who cleaned and repaired this watch in 1992, has sworn an affidavit which states that the 'Ripper scratches' were not in that watch when he worked on it. And in working on it he used the standard watchmaker's magnifying loupes, which show up every scratch and abrasion.

These things keep me coming back to the watch.

Well you don't have to, dating scratches on a piece of metal is not a definitive science, you cannot even trace the watch back to Maybrick with any degree of certainty.



The Baron

[The Baron]

on the balance of the evidence in front of me, I would fall on the side of I do not believe he wrote the diary.

Congratulations.



The Baron

[erobitha]

Yes, I guess?!





So it is subjective, and we are supposed to take the word of your unnamed source for this. You also confirm it is smaller than a men's watch.



The Baron

You seem to take Stanley Dangar's word. Why should I not take the information of someone who contacted me privately?

[erobitha]

We have a progress!!

Good for you, you are one foot back in reality

Those couple of years weren't totally wasted

I asked you about the Manchester Murder because I remember you were busy searching for it quite for some time?!

But now since you no longer believe in the Diary, that fabrication murder is not important any more

Welcome to the world of the living



The Baron

I am interested in people's use of language. You have no idea if I spent an hour or three months looking for Manchester murders, but it suits you to paint a picture that somehow I was poring over newspaper articles night and day. I can assure you that I wasn't. I was simply exploring any potential possibilities that could fit. Which is what everyone should do. Think and research for yourself instead of following what the crowd say. I have conducted much of my own research, much of it new information on the Maybricks, his associates and potential illegitimate children. How much of your own research have you done?

I have a working theory that does not involve James Maybrick writing the diary, but you know what, would I be absolutely stunned and shocked should some evidence emerge that he could have? I don't think I would, but on the balance of the evidence in front of me, I would fall on the side of I do not believe he wrote the diary.

The watch has always been a different kettle of fish altogether. I know the timing worries people, and therefore, that's enough for them to dismiss it. But really, spend time actually reading what the scientific reports actually say, and what it actually means. The engravings were almost certainly decades old in 1993 - minimum. Embedded brass particles in the base of the engravings - embedded. Polished edges of layers signify ageing. Scratches that overlap the "Maybrick" scratches. The K matches a number of examples across a number of years.

These things keep me coming back to the watch. I could not care less if people compare me to a flat earther or "living in the world of the dead". I think for myself. I do my own research.

[The Baron]

Do I need to see a pair of underpants on a man before I can call them men's underpants?

Yes, I guess?!

My information is confirmed by someone who has worked with antique watches for over 40 years.

So it is subjective, and we are supposed to take the word of your unnamed source for this. You also confirm it is smaller than a men's watch.



The Baron