The Inconvenient Truth of the Maybrick Watch

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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