Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Inconvenient Truth of the Maybrick Watch

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

  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    I don’t know why Shirley wrote what she did in her second book, but Keith assures me that from his own interactions with Albert he had no desire to sell the watch during that period.

    I have had no interaction with Shirley so I don’t know accurate that event was.

    Hmmm.

    It’s a pity that while Keith’s presence is often felt in these discussions of the Maybrick hoax, he never posts, so we must rely on what you call “hearsay.”

    Just to be clear, is it you or is it Keith who is suggesting that Shirley Harrison's account is wildly inaccurate and unfounded and not to be trusted?

    Shirley gives specific details, including precise figures and a meeting at a solicitor's office. She also alludes to speaking directly with the Texan, Robert E. Davis. Are we supposed to ignore this in favor of Keith's impressions about Albert's inner desires?

    Did Keith himself ever speak to Robert E. Davis to confirm or disprove this account?

    Harrison's book came out in 2003. Considering Keith's lifelong interest in the diary and the watch, it seems strange that he never asked her about these events, considering that they run so counter to his own beliefs about Albert. Maybe you should ask him, so we can clear up any misunderstandings we might have.

    And by the way--why are there specific monetary figures in Albert's notes? If a person is not interested in selling the watch, why would they be recording these figures? That's a little unusual, isn't it?

    Even in Paul Feldman's account of the early years (and his book was written before this proposed 1999 sale), he alludes to Albert's willingness to sell the watch, though Albert claims that he would prefer to give the money to charity. (Feldman himself voiced skepticism about this 'see how good we are' declaration).

    It sounds as if people had diverse opinions about Albert's inner desires. Harrison, by contrast, alludes to a specific attempt to sell the watch. Unless you are suggesting that she has merely made it all up, this is an objective fact rather than an impression.

    As for Albert paying for the tests. This has been reported differently at different times. Harrison claims she funded Wild's examination at Bristol. She also once alluded to Albert being reimbursed—based on what, I do not know. A lot of what we have been told over the years turns out to have been inaccurate later on. According to Feldman, Harrison and Smith didn't want to fund the watch--they were so skeptical about the timing of the watch’s appearance and were so concerned that it would undermine the diary's credibility, that they hoped that asking Albert to pay for any tests himself would be enough to make him fade away into the shadows. He did, however, call their bluff. And after all, he had the excitable and enthusiastic Robbie pushing him.
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 12-02-2022, 04:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    Be useful to see the watch analysis in full (not just the cherry picked versions).
    It's on Casebook.

    Final time I will reply to you on this as we are getting nowhere. You have offered nothing by an expert that contradicts the evidence we have today. Everything else is sheer opinion.

    Established facts (from the report when you can be bothered to look for it):
    • Darkened embedded brass particles in the base of the engravings
    • Polished edges suggest age
    • The scratches are at least tens of years of age in 1993
    • Corroborated by Dr Wild in 1994
    Supplemental evidence:
    • Similarity of Maybrick's signature, especially the K
    • Dr Turgoose confirmed that he, even with his technical knowledge, could not recreate the scratches
    Until an expert comes along to support any of the counter-theories we have seen from the likes of you or Palmer then these remain the facts and the evidence.

    What does the evidence as it stands tell you?

    Of course, you don't want to see it, which makes you a denier in the face of facts.
    Last edited by erobitha; 12-02-2022, 02:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aethelwulf
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    * What document had his known authenticated signature at the time?

    You seem to be implying that it would have been impossible for someone to have got hold of his signature. Using the word 'authenticated' doesn't suddenly make it impossible.

    * How many different metals and corroded tools did he have to practice with? We know the scratches were done at different times with different tools

    Again, this isn't criminal mastermind territory, it could have been done.

    * And gets the K bang on with his rusty tool after using tracing paper and sticky back plastic

    Practice makes perfect. Can someone upload some images of JM's signature in full and the watch signature in full.

    Show me something scientific. Right now you do a worse job than RJ at simply muddying waters with no facts
    Be useful to see the watch analysis in full (not just the cherry picked versions).

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    You're wasting your time. Ike and Ero have been so deeply suckered into this total nonsense as to write a book and electronic doorstop on the subject. If the Maybrick interpretation of the GSG is seen by these as sound, well nothing will ever change their minds.
    Firstly whose theory on the GSG exactly are you referencing? I do not share Ike's view on it, so this does show your lack of attention to detail.

    Watch sceptics are now watch deniers, as far as I'm concerned.

    "A skeptic will question claims, then embrace the evidence. A denier will question claims, then reject the evidence."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    I mentioned the solicitor because we are constantly told by Jay Hartley that Johnson kept the watch in his family; further, we have been told by Shirley Harrison that "Albert was not interested in money"; third, once-upon-a-time we were even told by you that Albert never made a penny off the watch (which wasn't true)

    Yet the very first time the Johnson brothers showed the watch to Feldman, they brought along a solicitor

    What normal, salt-of-the-earth person with no financial motive but simply an interesting artifact does that?

    I thought it was an interesting detail--but to each their own.
    I do state that position because I still believe it to be true.

    It was Richard Nicholas who recommended Albert get the watch tested in the first place. Which he did with his own money.

    Feldman was so quiet and unassuming wasn’t he? Why would anyone want to bring a trusted solicitor along to a meeting with Feldman? I mean he would never make wild accusations or spontaneous declarations or crazy offers would he?

    It’s simply someone being cautious and with Feldman they were right to be. To RJ a real life solicitor at a meeting like this is as a good as scratching the initials into a Victorian watch with a rusty old compass.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    We're not talking evil genius here though.
    1. Hoaxer obtains document with JM's signature
    2. Hoaxer practices signature on soft metal
    3. Hoaxer inscribes watch
    * What document had his known authenticated signature at the time?
    * How many different metals and corroded tools did he have to practice with? We know the scratches were done at different times with different tools
    * And gets the K bang on with his rusty tool after using tracing paper and sticky back plastic

    Show me something scientific. Right now you do a worse job than RJ at simply muddying waters with no facts

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

    Surely that cannot be stated beyond reasonable doubt? Especially with all the points raised by rjpalmer? And then beyond that I just don's see why Maybrick would have done it? Why scratch his name illegibly into the watch along with 'I am Jack'? and then the initials of the victims? Why not the initials of his other victims (as alluded to in the diary) or at least some indication that he killed others? It just does not make sense. Is there any evidence that actually links Maybrick to the watch?

    What does make sense is that for some reason two chancers saw an opportunity following all the hype of the diary to get involved. Amazing that the watch appeared within weeks of the diary. Too much of a coincidence surely? Maybe if they had appeared years apart but come on.....
    The watch will never beyond doubt, but whether that is ‘reasonable’ or not remains subjective. We can keep getting the watch tested but for what? What test will ultimately satisfy? Seemingly RJ won’t name such an expert or test before he is satisfied and hence our problem. It remains an inconvenience.

    Serial killers as we later learned keep all sorts of trophies, momentos and reminders. This was partly a reminder but also like message in a bottle. A confessional that will be out there that hopefully one day history will find. I don’t see that as an issue at all. It is in line with psychopathic narcissism. AgIn, why he did it is a debate and subjective. We have this this watch which needs to be considered seriously.

    If the watch and diary came from the same place at the same time would that not answer your convenient timing criticism?

    RJ’s points are simply subjective viewpoints and are not based on anything scientific. His opinion on Robbie Johnson is his opinion. He has no proof Robbie did anything criminal other than he was convicted of a drug crime. I don’t know why Shirley wrote what she did in her second book, but Keith assures me that from his own interactions with Albert he had no desire to sell the watch during that period.

    I have had no interaction with Shirley so I don’t know accurate that event was. I will note that $15k for travel expenses sounds a bit wild to me. This event remains hearsay and does not change the science.

    Just because people don’t like what they can see doesn’t mean what they can see is not real. Until an expert confirms otherwise the watch remains an inconvenient truth.
    Last edited by erobitha; 12-02-2022, 09:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Wow - and a solicitor!
    I mentioned the solicitor because we are constantly told by Jay Hartley that Johnson kept the watch in his family; further, we have been told by Shirley Harrison that "Albert was not interested in money"; third, once-upon-a-time we were even told by you that Albert never made a penny off the watch (which wasn't true)

    Yet the very first time the Johnson brothers showed the watch to Feldman, they brought along a solicitor

    What normal, salt-of-the-earth person with no financial motive but simply an interesting artifact does that?

    I thought it was an interesting detail--but to each their own.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I'm not sure what the point of this exercise is, if you think there was no such attempt, and that any similarity was purely accidental.

    But I'll humour you and explore this option further anyway.
    Caz--can you see why I sometimes accuse you of deliberate gaslighting?

    You asked me to explain how a hoaxer could obtain Maybrick's signature and even implied that I was ducking your question.

    When I finally did answer it--despite not even accepting the premise--you respond by saying you are 'not sure of the point' but will humor me.

    Good grief. It was I who was humoring you.

    Originally posted by caz View Post
    When you next email Chris Jones, you could always ask him to contact Val Johnson and ask her if Albert or Robbie's hobbies had ever included family tree research, including sending off for certificates. Meanwhile, could you describe the step by step process required in 1993 to obtain Maybrick's marriage certificate from the GRO [General Register Office - not the PRO, Public Record Office]?
    I repeat, I don't accept the premise.

    As we know from the saga of the diary, theorizing about risk assessment is a waste of time. Criminals take risks. Hoaxers take risks. A bold hoaxer might well have concluded it was worth the risk to simply scratch any generic signature on the watch, perhaps speculating that the gullible would accept it even if it looked nothing whatsoever like Maybrick's. And if they didn't accept it, the hoaxer would simply be sent packing.

    And, of course, such things happen. Look no further than Robert Smith and Paul Feldman and Thomas Mitchell's acceptance of the diary as authentic despite the handwriting looking nothing like Maybrick's.

    Secondly, I have never emailed Chris Jones.

    Third, if it was such an insurmountable obstacle to get a sample of Maybrick's handwriting in 1992/1993, why did Keith Skinner asked Mike Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger meeting in 1999 why he didn't simply obtain a copy of Maybrick's will so he could imitate the handwriting?

    If Keith thought Mike Barrett was capable of such an obvious no-brainer, why are we supposed to be bowled over by the possibility that a more capable person--such as Robbie Johnson--could have chased down a marriage record?

    Not that I think he bothered. I'm just saying he could have bothered and feel this line of inquiry is a distraction.

    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Keith thinks it could have been up to a fortnight in 1993 for a postal application to be processed.
    As you previously noted, the diarist's name was revealed in the Liverpool Post on 22 April 1993.

    Johnson phoned Smith on 3 June 1993, but didn't actually show the watch until 14 June.

    That's a 53 day span.

    So why is a fortnight an obstacle?

    But we agree on one point--you might want to run this past someone else, as I don't accept the premise; I don't accept that the hoaxer was necessarily imitating a known exemplar.

    While I muse over the subtle distinctions between 'slightly worried' and 'bothered' and 'having misgivings' maybe you could address the letter 'a' in Maybrick's signature?

    I thank you in advance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Has there ever been a case in history where someone discovers an "old hoax"?
    I think not. The person who brings forth the hoax is therefore undoubtedly the hoaxer.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Feldman tells us how Robbie was with Albert (and a solicitor!) when he was shown the watch the first time.
    Wow - and a solicitor! Are you not surprised Feldy didn't throw them all out? Only guilty people consult solicitors, eh RJ?

    On 14th June 1993, Robert Smith [without his solicitor] saw the watch for the first time, and following this meeting the Johnson brothers approached Richard Nicholas for representation and advice in helping promote the watch.

    On 27th June 1993, Robert offered to fund necessary research into the watch for a 25% share in it.

    Albert, however, decided he would prefer to fund the research himself.

    On 5th July 1993, Feldman and Keith saw the watch for the first time.

    On 10th August 1993 came Turgoose's report on the watch.

    In September 1993, Martin Howells interviewed Richard Nicholas.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Nor was it even just Feldman's opinion. He writes that Keith Skinner had misgivings about Robbie's "enthusiasm" (p. 32)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Feldman 32 A.jpg
Views:	437
Size:	23.4 KB
ID:	800874
    In a fax Keith sent to Feldman, referring to the meeting at his house on 5th July 1993 [which was the first time Keith saw the watch and met the Johnson brothers], he wrote that he was 'slightly worried' by Robbie, as he appeared too eager to show excitement when told the 'M' in the watch matched the 'M' of Maybrick. Feldman changed it to Keith being 'bothered', and now you give it a typical RJ spin by claiming he had 'misgivings'.

    On that evening, according to Keith, he wasn't even thinking of a watch with faked scratches. He hardly knew anything about the watch. For Keith, the most important thing was to get a copy of the sketch, which the Johnson brothers had brought along with them - as reproduced in Feldman's book. Keith distinctly remembers using Feldman's fax machine to make a copy as the photocopier wasn't working. What had 'slightly worried' him about Robbie was how hyperactive he was - jumping up and down with excitement when Feldman was telling him the watch could be worth a fortune. The way Robbie reacted was completely different from the way Keith says he would have reacted. It was like he could not believe the good fortune which had come their way. But just because Robbie's reaction was the polar opposite of how Keith would have reacted, this did not automatically mean Keith was suspicious of him.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Also...

    For the sake of argument, let's forget the above objections and say that we all agree that there was an attempt to imitate the signature on Maybrick's wedding certificate.

    Is it impossible for the hoaxer to have obtained a copy?
    I'm not sure what the point of this exercise is, if you think there was no such attempt, and that any similarity was purely accidental.

    But I'll humour you and explore this option further anyway.

    Why is this a reasonable objection? Has the fact that the hoaxer(s) of the dismal diary didn't even bother to imitate Maybrick's handwriting blind us to the fact that a more intelligent hoaxer may have tried to do so when creating the watch?

    It's hardly rocket science that such a thought would have entered someone's brain.

    There are people on this site and on JTR Forums and on dozens of genealogical sites around the internet who frequently order marriage records.

    The early 1990s were before the age of the internet, of course, but there was a long enough delay between the 'Maybrick' story breaking in the newspapers and the fortuitous discovery of the etchings on the watch a few weeks later that a hoaxer could have ordered a copy of the certificate and had it mailed to Liverpool.​

    Did anyone check? Back in the day, did anyone contact the PRO and see if someone had recently ordered a copy?

    Evidently not. So here we are, speculating.
    We have a fixed-in-stone time frame, from conception to labour and birth of the Maybrick Watch, between 22nd April and 3rd June 1993.

    There is no evidence that Keith Skinner is aware of that either of the Johnson brothers had any knowledge about genealogical research, or were even interested in it. For your speculation to work, you need to provide something tangible to connect your suspects to the deed, instead of just allowing for possibilities, however remote, which all too easily become facts in more impressionable minds.

    When you next email Chris Jones, you could always ask him to contact Val Johnson and ask her if Albert or Robbie's hobbies had ever included family tree research, including sending off for certificates. Meanwhile, could you describe the step by step process required in 1993 to obtain Maybrick's marriage certificate from the GRO [General Register Office - not the PRO, Public Record Office]? Having got this far, would Albert or Robbie have realised that the certificate they were sent - or went down to London to collect - was a certified copy and did not have the original signature of James Maybrick? Keith thinks it could have been up to a fortnight in 1993 for a postal application to be processed. If they went down to London to apply for it in person, they could collect it in person after 4 days for a few quid, or make a special application to collect it in 24 hours, costing £20.

    As for checking if a Johnson brother had recently applied for that marriage certificate, how would you have gone about doing this? Would that kind of personal information have been handed out like sweeties to anyone who wanted to know, even as far back as 1993? Would you not have needed police powers?

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
    What does make sense is that for some reason two chancers saw an opportunity following all the hype of the diary to get involved. Amazing that the watch appeared within weeks of the diary. Too much of a coincidence surely? Maybe if they had appeared years apart but come on.....
    Your two 'chancers', whose solicitor said: 'I wouldn't be representing them if I felt in any way that they had manufactured a hoax', would have had a limited opportunity to get involved, between 22nd April 1993, when James Maybrick's name was first connected with JtR in the Liverpool Daily Post [that was the extent of the 'hype' as you describe it], and 3rd June 1993, when Robert Smith was first contacted about the watch, connecting both famous names. The 'chancers' would also have needed the means to grasp that opportunity, and they didn't even know which victims' initials to include, because the diary itself would not be published in Shirley's book until the October.

    To be accurate, the watch appeared 'within weeks' of the first news about a diary which had emerged back in April 1992. If you think that is too much of a coincidence, what do you make of the watch appearing for sale in a Wallasey jeweller's shop window in the Spring of 1992, at around the same time the diary first appeared in the office of a London literary agency?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    All I am saying is that whoever did it was familiar with the form that signature took in the 1880s - or they were guessing and the correct form was purely accidental, which seems rather unlikely, doesn't it?
    As we can see in the photograph of the watch, the 'a' in the signature of "Maybrick" is very stylized and idiosyncratic:


    Click image for larger version  Name:	maybrick a.jpg Views:	0 Size:	5.9 KB ID:	800966

    You argue that the watch replicates Maybrick's known signature from the 1880s (actually, the examples Hartley uses are from the 1870s).

    As such, can you point us to an example of this stylized 'a' in Maybrick's known signature?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X