The Inconvenient Truth of the Maybrick Watch

[erobitha]

https://jayhartley.com/the-inconveni...aybrick-watch/

[rjpalmer]

Elsewhere, RJP writes of the 'Maybrick' watch: Someone had obviously roughed up the surface after making the undatable etchings.

I considered this to be an obvious statement of fact, but Paul Butler responded:

No they didn't. The surface wear and light scratching in the back of the Maybrick watch is consistent with just about any old gold watch you'd come across. You just need to look.

Hmm. If this is true, then where are all the ‘light scratches’ and surface wear underneath the ‘Maybrick’ etchings?

Recall that the watch dates to around 1848, so even if we accept the wildly improbable idea that the ‘Maybrick’ etchings were made in 1888, there should be at least four decades of accumulation of what Mr. Butler is claiming to be normal wear & tear before the ‘Maybrck’ etchings were made.

But this is not what Turgoose reports. He writes:

“The markings identified to me as “am J” and “Maybrick” are the earliest visible markings. All others overlay these where crossing does occur. Also, all the surface scratchings are later than all the engraving. This can be clearly seen in Micrograph 3 where the random surface scratching go across the engravings.”


So we have the strange situation where the inside surface of the watch remained more-or-less pristine for 40 years or much, much longer, and then ‘Maybrick’ made his etchings, and then there is a sudden accumulation of superficial scratches and wear-and-tear on top of these etchings, even though, according to Thomas Mitchell and others, the watch lay undisturbed beneath Maybrick’s floorboards for 103 or 104 years.

This makes no sense, is highly suspicious, and is indeed ‘backwards’ to what one would expect from such a scenario.

But it gets worse.

According to Turgoose, the ‘Maybrick’ engravings are worn down. This could have been done either artificially or by the watch having been in circulation for a good deal of time.

“Another feature of which will also be apparent in other regions is that there is very little evidence of “mounding” of metal on either side of the horizontal marking, and that the scratch marks on the bottom of the engraving are very indistinct…

“This shows that in places the engraving has been completely polished out, again indicating significant wear since the engraving [was made]”

Hmm. Since the watch was supposedly under Maybrick’s floorboards since about 3 May1888, how did these engravings get worn down?

One could argue that it wasn’t until a watchmaker polished heavily on them after the Battlecrease caper of March 1992, but then how and where and for what reason did all these surface scratches on top of the worn engravings come about, if, as Mr. Butler claims, they are from normal wear and tear as one can find on "any old watch?"

For, unlike the worn engravings, Turgose notes of these surface scratches:

“The superficial scratches, however, appear to have sharp edges showing little smoothing.”

In other words, the watch had been either artificially smoothed after the Maybrick etchings were made, or it had been in circulation for a good length of time. Then, and only then, was this network for sharp, superficial scratches placed on top of them, and the sharpness of the edges show that the watch couldn’t have been in circulation or have been polished after they had been made.

This is why I earlier wrote "a sudden accumulation" of scratches, because Turgoose does not report that these superficial scratches showed various degrees of wear as one would expect if they had accumulated at different times over a period of years. They were all sharp.

Or, as I originally stated,

“Someone had obviously roughed up the surface after making the undatable etchings.”

Personally, I find this suspicious as hell. I believe it was an attempt to make the etchings underneath appear as if they had existed for a long time, and a clumsy attempt at that.

[erobitha]

Would you fathom that readers?

Mr Palmer, he of “you can’t date scratches in metal” is now trying to date scratches in metal. What a curious thing to do.

Mr Palmer was rather quick to dismiss the experts views on the order in which the scratches were made but now seemingly is all for their expertise and opinions on such things.

Nowhere in either report we do see a blanket dismissal of scratches prior to the Maybrick ones. There is nothing that claims the metal had zero wear and tear prior to the Maybrick scratches. That is Mr Palmer’s interpretation. He is not an expert and neither does he believe in those he thinks claim to be able to date scratches in metal.

[rjpalmer]

Would you fathom that readers?

Mr Palmer, he of “you can’t date scratches in metal” is now trying to date scratches in metal. What a curious thing to do.

A silly response, as usual, Jay.

Nowhere in the above do I 'date' the scratches or etchings on the watch, because this is impossible. You're making things up.

I have merely repeated Dr. Turgooses's observations about the order in which the scratches were made, and their curious patterns of wear & tear--or lack thereof---which completely undermines Paul Butler's claims that such wear is normal for a watch that has been in circulation--even though Thomas Mitchell and others claim the watch wasn't in circulation for over 102 years.

This doesn't apply to you, of course, since you recently theorized that someone broke into Dodd's house, removed the carpets etc., and placed the watch and diary (and evidently crucifix, etc) under his floorboards, in hopes that Dodd would find them. It does, however, pose a real problem for Caz and Thomas.

Nowhere in either report we do see a blanket dismissal of scratches prior to the Maybrick ones. There is nothing that claims the metal had zero wear and tear prior to the Maybrick scratches.

"Also, all the surface scratchings are later than all the engraving." -Dr. Stephen Turgoose.

You stand corrected.

It's not my 'interpretation'--it is what Dr. Turgoose wrote.

Butler said these surfaces scratches are what one can normally expect to find on "any old watch," yet Dr. Turgoose couldn't see any evidence of them underneath the 'Maybrick' etchings, which he states were the 'earliest visible markings.'

40 or 60 or 100 years in circulation, yet the only surface scratchings are the ones on top of the 'Maybrick' ones.

Yeah, that's totally normal and there is nothing suspicious about it.

[rjpalmer]

He is not an expert

Dr. Turgoose wrote that he could not rule out a hoax...yet you and Thomas evidently want us to rule out a hoax. So who is ignoring the expert?

And if 'experts' and scientists cannot error and must be accepted without question, am I right in assuming that you are equally convinced that Aaron Kosminski had a sexual encounter with Kate Eddowes shortly before her murder and left his semen on her shawl?

And further, that the Maybrick Hoax was written in 1921 +/- 12 years, as reported by the scientist McNeil? (Ie., this means the diary was written between 1909 and 1933).

Or is it only some scientists that you reject, even though Dr. Turgoose is the one of the above three (Juri Louhelaninen and Rod McNeil being the others) who immediately qualified his conclusions, admitting it could be a much more recent hoax and that more work was needed?

[erobitha]

Dr. Turgoose wrote that he could not rule out a hoax...yet you and Thomas evidently want us to rule out a hoax. So who is ignoring the expert?

And if 'experts' and scientists cannot error and must be accepted without question, am I right in assuming that you are equally convinced that Aaron Kosminski had a sexual encounter with Kate Eddowes shortly before her murder and left his semen on her shawl?

And further, that the Maybrick Hoax was written in 1921 +/- 12 years, as reported by the scientist McNeil? (Ie., this means the diary was written between 1909 and 1933).

Or is it only some scientists that you reject, even though Dr. Turgoose is the one of the above three (Juri Louhelaninen and Rod McNeil being the others) who immediately qualified his conclusions, admitting it could be a much more recent hoax and that more work was needed?

How to be accused of picking cherries by the King of Cherry Picking!

Personal interpretations cannot be held in the same regard as what is stated fact - from either side. You are attempting to shoe horn an interpretation as a stated fact.

For example, it is stated fact there were aged brass particles embedded in the base of the engravings. Yet the interpretation you and others have opted for are it must be an old engraving tool that left them there. No official report has stated that is possible. That is your interpretation.

Mine is the particles are indicative of age of the engravings and have been there ‘at least tens of years’, as stated by Dr Wild.

Experts can indeed get things wrong, but there has been nothing scientifically as yet by anyone with any authority that undermines the findings of Turgoose and Wild.

Your interpretation of the order in which the scratches were created is your interpretation. They are not scientific fact. Show me an expert who agrees with you on this. Show me an expert that says an old engraving tool could leave behind embedded particles in the base of the engravings.

In the case of the ‘shawl’, other DNA scientists have questioned the findings based on their expert opinions of the data and the validity of the tests.

Rod McNeil is the only expert you have that offers a conflicting assessment of the diary - but one might question the true depth of his scientific analysis.

Interpret all you want. It doesn’t change the science.

[rjpalmer]

Your interpretation of the order in which the scratches were created is your interpretation. They are not scientific fact. Show me an expert who agrees with you on this.

This has become surreal.

This is not my interpretation.

I have directly quoted the only scientist--Dr. Stephen Turgoose--who discussed the order in which the etchings and scratches were made. (Wild's study at Bristol did not, but focused on other matters).

Thus, the 'expert that agrees with me' is Dr. Stephen Turgoose himself.

Once again, from the top.

Turgoose unequivocally states that the earliest markings were the etchings "am J" and "Maybrick."

This is not my interpretation...this is what he wrote:



Are you denying that he wrote this?

Next, Turgoose unequivocally states that ALL of the 'superficial scratches' were made later than all of the 'Maybrick' engraving(s).




Again, this order of these markings is not my 'interpretation.' This is what Turgoose wrote. "All the superficial scratches are later than all the engraving."

Are you also denying this?


He further reveals that the lower, 'Maybrick' etchings have "significant smoothing"--which he associates with 'wear' and 'age'---whereas the superficial scratches on top of them are 'sharp' and show "little smoothing."



How is this not a scientific fact? It's a simple observation made under magnification.

I am accurately and directly quoting Turgoose's own analysis.

Are you saying Dr. Turgoose got it wrong and didn't know what he was looking at? And that the superficial scratches are actually under the 'Maybrick' signature and etchings? And that the etchings aren't worn and 'smooth', but the superficial scratches are?

To be blunt, have you even read his report and contemplated what this might mean about the watch supposedly being out of circulation for 102 years?

Dr. Turgoose is saying that the confessional signatures are worn down and smooth. How would that happen when they were under a floorboard for a century?

And if someone polished down the confessional etchings after retrieving the watch from under the floorboards on 8 March 1992, where did all of these other superficial scratches come from that Turgoose tells us are on top of the etchings and are still "sharp"?

Paul Butler seems to be saying that these scratches are the normal wear-and-tear one sees on "any old watch."

None of the interpretations I'm seeing make the least bit of sense.

[Iconoclast]

None of the interpretations I'm seeing make the least bit of sense.

From what I can tell, the most important premise here seems to be that the watch was under Maybrick's floorboards for 103 years. That gives rise to the question mark against how any superficial scratches could have occurred on top of Maybrick's confession, right?

But who is saying that the watch was categorically under the floorboards all that time? I appreciate that there is a claim by one of the electricians (or by Alan Dodgson who spoke with Alan Davies) that the watch, Chapman's ring or rings, and the scrapbook were found in a biscuit (I think) tin under the floorboards, but - as far as I'm aware - that was pure speculation on the part of whoever claimed it?

If you remove that premise from the argument, the most recent scratches don't have to have occurred on or before May 11, 1889, as far as my Lucky Bag of logic tells me.

[erobitha]

Here is an example of interpretation, just like your examples. Turgoose wrote the following:


The phrase "All of those examined" implies he did not examine the entire full range of scratches and focused on specific sections under the microscope. In fact, we know this to be true because he actually told us that's what he did.



This means we cannot rule out that the "superficial surface scratches" that he did not examine could be older than the Maybrick scratches. We don't know. He didn't examine them.

He still feels confident enough from what he did examine to claim that the Maybrick engravings are more than tens of years old, which means a modern forgery is not possible.

More water muddying.

The scientist has presented these facts:

• Aged brass particles embedded into the base of the engravings
• The nature of how the edges were polished on the engravings is consistent with age
• To recreate similar results would require technical knowledge that even Dr Turgoose himself said he would be unable to replicate

Surreal indeed.

[rjpalmer]

From what I can tell, the most important premise here seems to be that the watch was under Maybrick's floorboards for 103 years. That gives rise to the question mark against how any superficial scratches could have occurred on top of Maybrick's confession, right?

But who is saying that the watch was categorically under the floorboards all that time?

Not just the superficial scratches--also the 'smoothing' of the etchings, which Turgoose implies had been done over time.

And not just Davies.

Caroline Brown and now Marcus Aurelius Franzois have also argued that the appearance of the watch in a shop window in the spring of 1992 is too coincidental, and thus they associate the watch with the horde of items allegedly removed from Battlecrease on 8 March 1992---the same caper that you associate with the floorboards of Maybrick's study having been lifted for the first time in over 100 years.

The various theories and counter-theories become convoluted.

Where did these 'sharp' edged scratches come from, anyway? There are dozens of them, and I dispute they are normal wear and tear. Odder still, Wild accepted that the watch had been polished between 1984 and 1988 and that this would have removed some of the surface. So why were the edges of the superficial scratches still sharp?

This will probably be upsetting to you, but as far as I am concerned, we are handicapped by the fact that though Dr. Turgoose's report cries for clarification on several key points, we don't know if there was any follow-up questions or correspondence.

And this is troubling, because the tests were commissioned by Johnson himself, and Feldman admits that the Johnson brothers (both of them) told him lies, including a lie told by Robbie Johnson made when on the telephone from Dr. Turgoose's examination.

As such, I am far from confident that we have been give the whole story. Not by Dr. Turgoose, but by the man who had Albert wrapped around his finger: Robbie Johnson.

[erobitha]

Just to be clear, I have never promoted my theories as absolute fact - they are still theories and are still works in progress.

But I find it impossible to look beyond the floorboards at this juncture as to how both the diary and the watch came to the forefront in 1992.

We cannot ignore the fact the watch was repaired (randomly after almost 20 years of sitting in a drawer) in the Spring of 1992. The floorboards were raised in Battlecrease House in the Spring of 1992, and the call Mike made to Doreen Montgomery was on the exact same day the floorboards were raised.

I am not even including the similarity of the K I have of Maybrick's own hand with the 27 examples I have from Freemasons records with that in the watch. I am not even including the aged brass particles in the base of the engravings. The timing coincidence of the above means they are linked. They have to be. Coincidence is not good enough now. Even if the diary is proven to be a hoax I still believe in the watch.

The next step is to establish that link because the Johnsons and Barretts were either in it together / knew each other / was alerted of the other's scam, or because the two items actually did come from Battlecrease House on the 9th of March 1992.

[Aethelwulf]

I am not even including the similarity of the K I have of Maybrick's own hand with the 27 examples I have from Freemasons records with that in the watch.

Just as well because I can't see it matters. I can imagine scratching a passable signature on a metal surface is difficult. A hoaxer would almost certainly have made multiple practice runs before attempting the watch. In fact, I think it more likely a hoaxer would get a good signature than Maybrick who, because it was his watch, may have just made do with a once off instance. Short of Maybrick having a hobby metal engraving, the hoaxer, in my opinion, is more likely to come up with the more accurate signature.

[erobitha]

Just as well because I can't see it matters. I can imagine scratching a passable signature on a metal surface is difficult. A hoaxer would almost certainly have made multiple practice runs before attempting the watch. In fact, I think it more likely a hoaxer would get a good signature than Maybrick who, because it was his watch, may have just made do with a once off instance. Short of Maybrick having a hobby metal engraving, the hoaxer, in my opinion, is more likely to come up with the more accurate signature.

Zero logic in that statement.

You are saying a forger is more likely to get the K more like James Maybrick’s own hand than Maybrick himself.

And us watch defenders get accused of pretzel thinking…

[Losmandris]

I don't understand why, if the watch is genuine, Maybrick would have scratched his name in it? Or write 'I am Jack'? Why would he need/want to do that? It just seems a little too far fetched and too much of a coincidence. Fair enough if his name had been engraved in the watch or there was some provenance linking him to it but there does not seem to be. Also isn't it a watch for a woman? For me when you combine it with the bonkers tale of the diary and all its question marks and now this pretty intensive look at Maybrick as a person, it just seems totally fake to me.

I totally understand why people want it to be real. It would be amazing to tie everything up and say we finally have the culprit. But this just isn't. And as the years pass by this all just seems more and more an amateurish hoax. May have been convincing a few years back but now, no chance.

[Aethelwulf]

I don't understand why, if the watch is genuine, Maybrick would have scratched his name in it? Or write 'I am Jack'? Why would he need/want to do that? It just seems a little too far fetched and too much of a coincidence. Fair enough if his name had been engraved in the watch or there was some provenance linking him to it but there does not seem to be.

Yes, I thought the same thing. If this was actually Maybrick's watch it'd be more believable if it was properly engraved with his name and then he added the initials. The signature and I am Jack smack reminds me of putting labels in the kids' clothes in case they get lost. Total hoax from start to finish.