The Inconvenient Truth of the Maybrick Watch

[rjpalmer]

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?

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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

This will sound as rude as hell, and I hope that 'Ero' and 'Ike' realize that it is nothing truly personal, but who says that the signature looks like Maybrick's? The same two blokes who think they see 'FM' written on Kelly's back wall? Sorry, but that's not conclusive.

Has the signature ever been authenticated by an actual accredited handwriting expert, or is it just a matter of amateurs giving their opinions--sometimes in the same breath that they decry amateur opinions?

Here's my amateur opinion.

Personally, I am not convinced that this famous 'loop' on the k is actually part of the signature. To me, the depth looks different from the rest of the crude scratches that make up the 'k' (which just looks like a rudely fashioned X) and I suspect that it is actually part of the network of superficial, sharp-edged, and suspicious scratches that cover the surface of the watch, and thus the viewer sees what he or she wants to see.

It would take another microscopic examination to determine whether this is correct or not.

If one actually traces the direction of the hand movements that make up Maybrick's proven signature, the letter formation of the individual letters is not the same as those that make up 'Maybrick' on the watch. As I say, that is my amateur opinion--but if anyone doubts me, do the exercise for themselves.

Over a period of 30 years, I don't recall anyone actually seeking the opinion of an accredited expert. The accredited experts that looked at the diary all dismissed it as clearly not written by Maybrick. Were any of them asked about the watch?

[Losmandris]

You are entitled to your opinion, everyone is.

The watch is not a ladies watch. Common misconception which has stuck. It’s a men’s dress watch.

If you are going to confess to murder it would be helpful to let others know who you are. He may have wanted it to be found by history and eventually it was.

Unless you can provide an alternative to the evidence we have in front of us today then the evidence we have in front of us today has to be the truth.

Really? The only evidence I can see is that of a hoax. None of it makes any objective sense. So he writes the diary and then just to be on the safe side that people in the future know he was Jack the Ripper he scratches his name and all the other stuff into a watch? You really have to stretch the old imagination to accept all of this don't you?

[Aethelwulf]

What signature? Tell me how they got his signature in the first place. Bear in mind this had to have been between April 1993 when it was publicly known that James Maybrick was associated with the diary and June 1993 when Robert Smith was contacted by Albert Johnson. Are you aware of any signatures known at that time outside of his will stored in London?

Are you saying it is impossible for someone to have got a signature?

What sum of money? It was never sold despite numerous offers.
It was a hypothetical example I was giving

Maybrick’s father William was an engraver.
So what?

These are all established facts. You just don’t like what they might mean.

I would imagine a quick look online would turn up hoaxes many times more complicated than the watch/diary.

[erobitha]

It's totally logical and you know it.

Let's say you or I wanted to acquire a large sum of money and obtaining it required a signature, what would we do? Practice the signature dozens, perhaps hundreds of times. All I am saying is that a forger's desire to pass the watch off as real would mean they'd practice the signature lots of times, and very likely produce a good copy. Unless Maybrick was familiar with engraving a hard metal surface (a difficult task), why is he more likely to get a good copy? He isn't.

What signature? Tell me how they got his signature in the first place. Bear in mind this had to have been between April 1993 when it was publicly known that James Maybrick was associated with the diary and June 1993 when Robert Smith was contacted by Albert Johnson. Are you aware of any signatures known at that time outside of his will stored in London?

What sum of money? It was never sold despite numerous offers.

Maybrick’s father William was an engraver.

These are all established facts. You just don’t like what they might mean.

[Aethelwulf]

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…

It's totally logical and you know it.

Let's say you or I wanted to acquire a large sum of money and obtaining it required a signature, what would we do? Practice the signature dozens, perhaps hundreds of times. All I am saying is that a forger's desire to pass the watch off as real would mean they'd practice the signature lots of times, and very likely produce a good copy. Unless Maybrick was familiar with engraving a hard metal surface (a difficult task), why is he more likely to get a good copy? He isn't.

[erobitha]

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.

I fail to see your logic again.

He didn’t leave his name so he could claim it easily in lost property, which is why kids clothes are labelled with their names. He did it to tell history who he was. I actually think the watch was probably connected to one of his victims and the J.O. is a clue that we just haven’t figured out yet.

Even in his time Jack the Ripper was big news. One day the watch maybe found and he will get the credit for something he was most likely quite proud of privately. I don’t know why this concept is so difficult to process.

[erobitha]

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.

You are entitled to your opinion, everyone is.

The watch is not a ladies watch. Common misconception which has stuck. It’s a men’s dress watch.

If you are going to confess to murder it would be helpful to let others know who you are. He may have wanted it to be found by history and eventually it was.

Unless you can provide an alternative to the evidence we have in front of us today then the evidence we have in front of us today has to be the truth.

[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.

[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.

[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…

[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 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.

[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]

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.