Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Inconvenient Truth of the Maybrick Watch

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

  • #61
    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.

    Comment


    • #62
      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.
      Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
      JayHartley.com

      Comment


      • #63
        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
        Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
        JayHartley.com

        Comment


        • #64
          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.
          Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
          JayHartley.com

          Comment


          • #65
            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
            Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
            JayHartley.com

            Comment


            • #66
              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).

              Comment


              • #67
                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.
                Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                JayHartley.com

                Comment


                • #68
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


                    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.
                    To be clear I do not speak for Keith. I asked him what his impressions were of Albert at that time and in his view was he was not looking to sell the watch. I speak for me and if Keith wishes to clarify anything that has been misconstrued in any way he will.

                    I am simply saying I have nothing to go on with regards to that extract you shared other than the fact Shirley clearly wrote it. $15k in travel expenses seems rather excessive. Also, the so-called other shareholders that Robbie apparently involved did not pursue their supposed share did they? That must tell you something. The watch remains in Daisy’s possession.

                    I do not see what is suspicious about Albert writing any figures in his own personal notes. Maybe to counter argue people when they said he was hell bent on selling it? He wrote many things in his own personal notes, including handwritten replies to nonsensical forum arguments like yours. They are not mine to share before you ask.

                    My understanding with the tests is Albert paid for the Turgoose test. I don’t know who paid for Wild’s. Why they would bear any relevance on the evidence of the results I have no idea, but you seem to think it somehow materially affects things. It doesn’t.

                    The evidence is the evidence and no amount of character assassinations of Robbie or Albert changes that.

                    Let’s examine the evidence until the evidence is proven otherwise by other experts.
                    Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                    JayHartley.com

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Lordy me. Compare and contrast ero b's very straightforward, facts-first, facts-only post - #67 - with the muddied-waters approach of #68.

                      I think they speak volumes for the relative merits of what parties are seeking to achieve in presenting their cases.

                      Seriously, dear readers, what does anyone care if James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper? The watch points somewhat indisputably towards this conclusion and the much-sullied scrapbook backs up such a conclusion.

                      I have never understood the Great Hostility to Maybrick.

                      What the **** does anyone care that it was he and not some ongoingingly-unknown soul?

                      Ike
                      Last edited by Iconoclast; 12-02-2022, 04:58 PM.
                      Iconoclast
                      Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                      Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                      Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Jay Hartley tells us we are denying the 'facts'. We are all in denial.

                        But what did Dr. Stephen Turgoose actually write in his report?

                        From his introduction:

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Turgoose A.jpg
Views:	83
Size:	26.9 KB
ID:	801058

                        Hartley has either ignored this or has failed to understand it.

                        Note also that Dr. Turgoose's use of the word "opinion"--the very thing that Hartley himself curses about.

                        What Dr. Turgoose is saying in the above passage is that there is no way to definitively give the age of a scratch.

                        All one can do is give the relative age of a scratch, by comparing it to the other scratches and marks crossing over it or lying beneath it. The chronology, if you will. Not the age--but the chronology.

                        Dr. Turgoose then does this in the body of his report.

                        In his conclusion, he makes a warning which Hartley, Mitchell, and Brown all ignore:

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Turgoose B.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	39.2 KB
ID:	801059

                        He doesn't just say it. He stresses it.

                        "It must be stressed that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings."

                        I'm willing to take Dr. Tugroose's word for it. He states there is no conclusive evidence that the etchings are old.

                        It is Hartley (and Mitchell) who ignore this and insists otherwise.

                        Turgoose, while giving the opinion (his word) that the scratches are old, nonetheless admits that "they could have been produced recently."

                        He states that this would have required a complex, multistage process, but why can't that have been the case?

                        It could have been the case. He admits it.

                        All things considered, the skeptics accept this alternative possibility given by Turgoose himself, but are called denialists for doing so.

                        But it is not us--it is Hartley himself who has not heeding the warnings.


                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                          Lordy me. Compare and contrast ero b's very straightforward, facts-first, facts-only post - #67 - with the muddied-waters approach of #68.
                          You're quite the comic, Thomas.

                          Shirley Harrison's account of Albert Johnson trying to sell the watch to a Texan for $190,000 is the "muddied-waters" approach, whereas Jay Hartley loudly and repeatedly claiming that Johnson was not interested in money--evidently based on nothing more than Keith Skinner's impressions--is the "facts-first" approach.

                          Got it.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                            Jay Hartley tells us we are denying the 'facts'. We are all in denial.

                            But what did Dr. Stephen Turgoose actually write in his report?

                            From his introduction:

                            Click image for larger version  Name:	Turgoose A.jpg Views:	0 Size:	26.9 KB ID:	801058

                            Hartley has either ignored this or has failed to understand it.

                            Note also that Dr. Turgoose's use of the word "opinion"--the very thing that Hartley himself curses about.

                            What Dr. Turgoose is saying in the above passage is that there is no way to definitively give the age of a scratch.

                            All one can do is give the relative age of a scratch, by comparing it to the other scratches and marks crossing over it or lying beneath it. The chronology, if you will. Not the age--but the chronology.

                            Dr. Turgoose then does this in the body of his report.

                            In his conclusion, he makes a warning which Hartley, Mitchell, and Brown all ignore:

                            Click image for larger version  Name:	Turgoose B.jpg Views:	0 Size:	39.2 KB ID:	801059

                            He doesn't just say it. He stresses it.

                            "It must be stressed that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings."

                            I'm willing to take Dr. Tugroose's word for it. He states there is no conclusive evidence that the etchings are old.

                            It is Hartley (and Mitchell) who ignore this and insists otherwise.

                            Turgoose, while giving the opinion (his word) that the scratches are old, nonetheless admits that "they could have been produced recently."

                            He states that this would have required a complex, multistage process, but why can't that have been the case?

                            It could have been the case. He admits it.

                            All things considered, the skeptics accept this alternative possibility given by Turgoose himself, but are called denialists for doing so.

                            But it is not us--it is Hartley himself who has not heeding the warnings.


                            Master of Mud is at it again.

                            I have a theory Maybrick created those scratches. I believe he did. I believe they are old enough. That is my opinion. It is true neither scientist would put an exact year or date on the engravings.

                            However, both experts did not go beyond ‘tens of years’ as a date commitment, and it is fair to acknowledge that as a fact.

                            Turgoose:

                            Click image for larger version  Name:	turg.jpg Views:	0 Size:	99.8 KB ID:	801063

                            This was in 1993 and 1994 (agreed by Dr Wild). So at least decades old in 1993/94? Which essentially rules out the watch being a modern hoax. Which means it cannot have been created in reaction to a modern diary hoax.

                            I am not missing any warnings, RJ, I think it’s clear it’s you who cannot see through the muddied waters you have created.​​
                            Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                            JayHartley.com

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                              My understanding with the tests is Albert paid for the Turgoose test. I don’t know who paid for Wild’s. Why they would bear any relevance on the evidence of the results I have no idea, but you seem to think it somehow materially affects things. It doesn’t.
                              My God. You've hung around Caz so much that she's rubbing off.

                              It was YOU who tried to make hay out of the fact that Albert paid for the tests himself (as others have done before you):

                              Post #64

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

                              I merely ask whether this oft-repeated claim is the whole story, and I cite accounts given by Feldman and Harrison.

                              You then accuse me of 'character assassination' for attempting to seek clarification.

                              It's clear that you have given up on rational discourse long ago.

                              By the way, Robert E. Davis--that's Bob, to you--was a Texas multi-millionaire. He didn't sit in the tourist class section with you, I, and Thomas, hoping the stewardess would pass by soon with another bag of peanuts.

                              He was a busy man, and if he took the Concorde from New York to London it would have cost him $12,000 alone. A night in a five-star hotel in London and/or Liverpool, and the expenses could have well reached $15,000.

                              But I welcome discussing these details. I won't accuse you off committing "character assassination" against Robert Davis or Shirley Harrison for asking. I'll leave those melodramatic antics to you and Thomas Mitchell.

                              Ciao.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                Ciao.
                                'Ciao', my arse. You'll be back before I've finished my Gregg's Steak Bake and beans.

                                As I understand it (and I'm not the watchman 'round here), Albert was willing to pay for the first test himself because the alternative was to sacrifice 25% of the watch ownership to whoever would have paid (I think it was Robert Smith but I may be wrong) so I don't think Albert was being all heroic at all - he was being pragmatic and he was willing to be pragmatic because he clearly had huge confidence that his 225 watch which was going to cost c700 to test would not come back with an unpleasant shock (which is remarkably cavalier if he and/or Robbie knew it was a hoax).

                                I only recall Davis's $40,000 offer for the watch and - frankly - was amazed that Albert did not sell at that value as that was an incredible margin on his original 225 plus his c700, and young Daisy would have got quite the inheritance had he said yes. I'm unfamiliar with this $190,000 offer (I'm clearly not the watchman on any level here) but if it's true, who amongst us is so wealthy that we could look with disdain upon a working man nearing his pension seeking a bumper pay-day? Why does this have to mean anything about the authenticity or otherwise of the watch?

                                By the way, it's "you, me, and Thomas". This puts me in mind of Martin Fido's criticism of the scrapbook that no educated person would write the solecism "So young, unlike I". Despite being a highly-educated person himself, Martin failed to recognise that this is actually the correct grammar as it is short for "So young, unlike I am".

                                You see how easy it is for water-mudders to come up with arguments which have no merit but which stick inexorably like the mud they are throwing?

                                Ike
                                Iconoclast
                                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                                Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X