The Inconvenient Truth of the Maybrick Watch

[caz]

It appears to me that Robert E. Davis is the one that did the rejecting. And that this is truly the only reason the watch is still in the family.

And why did Davis reject it?

Because it was discovered that Robbie Johnson had given a false appraisal price for the watch and sold 'shares' based on this--commonly known as fraud--and thus we have two shadowy and menacing "investors" in the background whose names we do not know or at least have not been given.

I have little interest in the fine details here, because they don't help to show the watch engravings to be the work of hoaxers in 1993, and certainly don't rule out any alternative possibilities.

Once again, unless the Murphys were lying for no apparent gain, there were already visible scratches in the watch when Albert bought it, which could not have been there if it was hoaxed a year later.

But I'd simply ask RJ to clarify what he was saying about Robert E. Davis, because his point eludes me.

RJ previously posted this:

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.

So if Davis flew across the pond and stayed in the best hotels, paying out many thousands of dollars, all for the sake of the watch, he was presumably still interested in paying exceedingly good money for it, and would have done so, if he hadn't learned that Robbie had sold 'shares' in it to these shadowy "investors".

How does this equate to Davis being the one to reject the watch, if Robbie's actions had given him no choice but to return to Texas empty-handed, angry and out of pocket? If Albert had been hoping to make a killing, he'd have been every bit as disappointed by the way things turned out, the difference being that he was not thousands of dollars down on a deal that was scuppered even before Davis boarded his outward bound flight.

Assuming that money was a motivating factor for both Davis and Albert Johnson to shake hands on a deal [and I can't see why not - it would have been Daisy's money after all], would they not have been equally appalled by Robbie throwing a spanner in the works from beyond the grave? I can't see Albert knowing about Robbie's shareholders in advance, let alone inviting them along for the ride, if there was no replacement bus service available.

I don't know, but I imagine a possible explanation would be that the solicitor the brothers had shared in life provided the death blow to Davis's hopes of owning the watch outright, and to Daisy's dreams of enjoying the spoils, when Albert turned up with the Texan in tow, not yet fully appreciating they had a problem.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It sounds as if people had diverse opinions about Albert's inner desires.

Hmmm, I suppose that's the inherent problem with trying to ascertain anyone's 'inner' desires, isn't it?

In the end, as Anne Graham once observed, people will believe what they want.

We can speculate on Albert's inner desires, and for all we know he may have been hoping to sell the watch for a small fortune and whisk Val off for a life of luxury they had only ever dreamed of, and been bitterly disappointed by Robbie's actions to scupper his plans. But that wouldn't help us to identify who put the scratches in the watch or when. So it's another exercise in futility. Unless the Murphys were lying, for no apparent reason, about using jeweller's rouge to minimise faint scratches they had noticed with the naked eye in 1992, those scratches would still have been present when examined under the microscope more than a year later. And yet Turgoose and Wild were able to establish that there were no visible scratch marks, even at a microscopic level, beneath the Maybrick/JtR engravings. That's not an opinion; that's just counting. In short, if the Murphys tried to improve the appearance of scratch marks before Albert bought the watch, those marks must have included the disputed engravings, ruling out Robbie and anyone known to him as their creator.

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.

That would make both Harrison and Smith a damn sight more wary than RJ usually tries to make them appear, so credit where it's due.

Calling their bluff would not usually have been the action of someone who had any qualms about their brother's role in this. On the other hand, if Albert was as certain as he could be that nobody - including Robbie - could have got access to the watch and made the engravings while it was in his possession, his own eagerness [or call it his 'inner desire'] to find out more about them at his own expense would have been both natural and innocent. Robbie may have worn his excitement and enthusiasm on his sleeve, but it was Albert putting his money where his mouth was - with no expectation of having any of it refunded at a later date.

If Robbie had not been jumping up and down at the prospect, but had instead expressed the slightest doubts about the wisdom of testing the timepiece, that would have been far more cause for concern on everyone's part, from Albert to Shirley and Robert - and in 2023 RJ would still be using Robbie's behaviour against him.

In short, the Johnsons were damned from the start regardless. So why even bother to speculate about their 'inner desires' or try to interpret their words and actions?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

Hi ero,

Catching up with this thread...

It's a fair observation that Albert paid up front for Dr Turgoose to examine and report on the watch. This was two months before the diary would be published in Shirley's book.

If Albert had had the least suspicion that Robbie may have signed Maybrick's name in his watch, along with the other inscriptions, would he have willingly coughed up the money for tests which, for all he knew, could have sent his adored younger brother straight back to chokey?

And if Robbie had tricked his older brother in this way, would he not have done his best to dissuade him from paying out good money to get his own handiwork tested? How confident could Robbie have been that Dr Turgoose would be fooled?

It's mighty convenient for the modern hoax believers that they have Robbie's criminal record to play around with, but the fact that Albert was so willing to have the watch tested at his own expense surely implies that it never once crossed his mind that Robbie would - or could - have pulled one over on him and made those markings in the watch himself.

As with the diary, nobody has yet made any useful contribution to matching up handiwork to hoaxer. And so we get veiled references to A.N. Other doing the dirty work for Mike Barrett [because the diary handwriting, in all fairness, no more resembles a Barrett's than a Maybrick's] and presumably some shady character doing the same for Robbie Johnson.

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.

Feldy promised huge wealth to the individuals who connected themselves to the diary and watch. It would not be surprising if they were tempted by such promises, but falling into temptation isn't evidence that they were behind the creation of either of these potentially valuable artefacts. In both cases it would seem that their history was completely unknown to the usual suspects, apart from how each was acquired: the scrapbook from Devereux, Lyons or Outhwaite & Litherland, depending on one's personal suspicions; the watch from Stewarts the Jewellers. Before that - nothing.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

With one foot out the door...

They were not alerted!

That'll be why he turned up for the discussion, for Christ's sake!

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you mate?

I suppose you're too busy anticipating USA v England in the World Cup.

Robbie was dead at the time of this sale in 1999.

It was just Albert.

The rich Texan flew in from...wait for it...Texas and met Albert at his solicitor's office.

How did these two knuckle draggers with connections to Robbie know about this meeting?

A crystal ball?

Got to run. Wish I well.

[Iconoclast]

By the way, Ike, I really do need to run off for a couple or three days now, but I'll just drop this here. It appears that Caz can use some help.




Can you point to a signature of Maybrick's from the 1870s or 80s that includes this highly stylized "a" or are the alleged similarities between the signatures overstated?

I'm also curious which would be more likely to steady the hand of an engraver--smoking a left-handed cigarette upstairs at Albert's place, or snorting a couple of lines of strychnine and arsenic in Maybrick's study?

Caz seems to be trying to make a point about drug use and etchings, but I'm not sure what it is.

Don't start me ...

[Iconoclast]

However, it still remains in Daisy’s possession. If the watch was created to cash in on the Maybrick diary, then why do the same family still own it 30 years on?

I think you're asking the wrong person this question. You need to ask this of someone who believes that "the watch was created to cash in on the Maybrick diary". I don't. Go figure.

Are they waiting for a bigger payday than the ones they rejected?"

Judging from her Facebook entries, it seems she is happy to keep the watch for its sentimental links to her grandfather, now long sadly passed.

It appears to me that Robert E. Davis is the one that did the rejecting. And that this is truly the only reason the watch is still in the family.

The deal was undone due to Robbie having sold some of his share in the watch without having first told Albert (nor second told him, nor third), as well you know.

And why did Davis reject it?

I have a strong suspicion that an illogical claim - covered in mud - is heading for some clear water somewhere around here ...

Because it was discovered that Robbie Johnson had given a false appraisal price for the watch and sold 'shares' based on this--commonly known as fraud--and thus we have two shadowy and menacing "investors" in the background whose names we do not know or at least have not been given.

And there it is. Muddy the Mud Boy Muddles up the Mood Music and Waters Down the Wine which - as Dostoyevsky famously claimed - brought forth the truth.

We don't know what role the Chicago Mafia, the Milan Ultras, the Indian thuggees, or the Barnstaple Spin Class played in the watch not being sold. We are led to believe it is because Albert could not sell a watch which was partly owned by Robbie whose share he had not realised was partly owned by two of the Sopranos. It just doesn't matter, man!

And none of that interests you, eh?

I mean this sincerely when I say I couldn't give a **** because it is utterly irrelevant (don't let my three-legged whippet hear, though, as she's bound to reply, "It's not an elephant" - her favourite joke, sweet thing).

It would seem that any serious attempt to analyze the watch would include an attempt to identify these two men, especially considering that Dr. Turgoose did not rule out a modern hoax.

Honestly, your capacity for linking two totally irrelevant facts and knitting mud out of them as you pose on the banks of the Mersey or the Thames or the Tyne never ceases to amaze me.

Shirley Harrison doesn't respond to emails, but the question I would ask her is how these two 'menacing' figures knew of this meeting between Albert and Robert E. Davis.

Oh, give it up for Lent, man! Knit one, purl one, go and put the kettle on, we will score one more than you, water-mudder. Who cares who told them? Did someone telling them have any consequence? Did it even need to happen? All that needed to happen was that the seller and the purchaser realised that they could not transact the sale due to the legal aspect of not all sellers being present and agreeing to it! Whilst the rest of us are only off to Waterloo, you're already there, covered in mud, confused that there's no ******* water and no ******* loo!

There is an aspect of her account that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Oh, dear God, save me from the thing that doesn't make sense to just one of us out of 8,000,000,000.

They couldn't have just shown-up out-of-the-blue.

They weren't there!!!!!!

Someone--presumably Albert--must have alerted them ...

They were not alerted!

... yet we are told that Albert himself allegedly had no knowledge that Robbie had been selling shares in the watch.

That'll be why he turned up for the discussion, for Christ's sake!

There is more here than meets the eye ...

What is meeting the eye is splash back from your own mud, water-mudder!

but like I say, I'm not really surprised that you have no intention or desire to go there.

I'm going to Waterloo, mate, for a ******* vindaloo!

Ciao.

As the German said with his head covered ...

By the way, my dear grammarian, is the phrase "why do the family still own it" gramatically correct?

Obviously not, no. It should clearly be "Why does the family still own it?" (with the question mark) - but, honestly, it's not an elephant!!!!!

Ike
Totally at His Wit's End with all this Water-Mudding

[rjpalmer]

By the way, Ike, I really do need to run off for a couple or three days now, but I'll just drop this here. It appears that Caz can use some help.




Can you point to a signature of Maybrick's from the 1870s or 80s that includes this highly stylized "a" or are the alleged similarities between the signatures overstated?

I'm also curious which would be more likely to steady the hand of an engraver--smoking a left-handed cigarette upstairs at Albert's place, or snorting a couple of lines of strychnine and arsenic in Maybrick's study?

Caz seems to be trying to make a point about drug use and etchings, but I'm not sure what it is.

[rjpalmer]

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?

I agree with you that, in itself, Albert's attempt to sell the watch doesn't prove the scratches are a hoax. (Stop the presses!)

But that is missing the point, isn't it? (Unstop the presses!)

I gave this account in response to the naive and highly questionable statements made in Jay Hartley's blog:

"However, it still remains in Daisy’s possession. If the watch was created to cash in on the Maybrick diary, then why do the same family still own it 30 years on?

Are they waiting for a bigger payday than the ones they rejected?"

Do you not care about accuracy, Thomas? Jay is the one who raised this line of argument; I'm merely responding to it on a thread that he, himself, created for discussion.

It appears to me that Robert E. Davis is the one that did the rejecting. And that this is truly the only reason the watch is still in the family.

And why did Davis reject it?

Because it was discovered that Robbie Johnson had given a false appraisal price for the watch and sold 'shares' based on this--commonly known as fraud--and thus we have two shadowy and menacing "investors" in the background whose names we do not know or at least have not been given.

And none of that interests you, eh?

It would seem that any serious attempt to analyze the watch would include an attempt to identify these two men, especially considering that Dr. Turgoose did not rule out a modern hoax.

But your lack of interest in this doesn't surprise I.

(I listen to a lot of reggae, Old Man, don't diss I and my brothers).

Shirley Harrison doesn't respond to emails, but the question I would ask her is how these two 'menacing' figures knew of this meeting between Albert and Robert E. Davis.

There is an aspect of her account that doesn't make a lot of sense.

They couldn't have just shown-up out-of-the-blue. Someone--presumably Albert--must have alerted them, yet we are told that Albert himself allegedly had no knowledge that Robbie had been selling shares in the watch.

There is more here than meets the eye, but like I say, I'm not really surprised that you have no intention or desire to go there.

Ciao.

By the way, my dear grammarian, is the phrase "why do the family still own it" gramatically correct?

[Iconoclast]

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 c£700 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 c£700, 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

[rjpalmer]

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.

[erobitha]

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:



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:



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:



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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

[rjpalmer]

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:



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:



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.

[Iconoclast]

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

[erobitha]

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.