For anyone who hasn't been concentrating, I'm not complaining that we are discussing an off-topic issue in this thread (goodness knows, most of it is) but I was responding to Stephen Owl's comment that the watch is being "swept under the carpet" and not being discussed. I was providing an obvious explanation for the lack of discussion about the watch in a thread expressly said to be about the diary.
Of course, the irony about the recollection of the jeweller that the watch already had scratches before he sold it to Albert is that he also made clear that he had the watch in his possession prior to 9 March 1992. If he's telling the truth, therefore, we can at least be certain that the watch was not found in a biscuit tin under the floorboards of Battlecrease along with the diary.
Mind you, if one looks carefully at the words of the jeweller, Ron Murphy, in his statement, he doesn’t actually say that he remembers seeing the scratches, just that he was "almost certain that the markings were present when the watch was sold" adding, rather confusingly, "but they were not markings that I would have taken notice of". Perhaps he was "almost certain" of the presence of the scratchings because he couldn’t conceive of how they could have got on there after he sold the watch to Albert Johnson if they hadn't been on there at time of sale.
I've been thinking about the watch again recently myself. I just can't understand why it gets swept under the carpet and Diary takes centre stage. I mean, it has a more reliable provenance, a more credible person 'brought it market', it has a Maybrick signature which at least appears to match JM's hand, and the scientific tests undertaken so far are less contradictory. If the Diary had never come to light and the watch was the first time Maybrick's name had been linked with the Ripper crimes I wonder where the Jim as Jack discussion would be now?
You make a very valid point. I have said many times on this site that the greatest tragedy in this whole tale was that the journal ever fell into the hands of Michael Barrett (this point assumes that the journal is authentic, of course - it Barrett forged it, then clearly it would 'fall' into his hands).
dosnt the timing-right after the diary/maybrick came to light-raise your suspicions?
whats to stop someone, inspired by the diary, to scratch his name and the other stuff (I believe is the initials of the victims?) on it?
also-you really think someone like maybrick would scratch his name on the watch? hes well off enough-could just have his name engraved.
Seriously, you need to take a look at the markings to realise that you have misunderstood the context of the markings - they were put there (presumably) to gloat about the crimes, not to mark the watch as his.
If he had wanted to do both, of course, he could have done (had his initials engraved on the weatch, then engraved his 'confession' privately afterwards).
Not according to another expert whose opinion was that the inclusion of the iron particles in the scribings probably from the implement used were impossible to have been introduced and aged at the time of scribing. Also given that the scribings were made by more than one implement makes it quite unlikely that it was concocted by a forger.
I thought that raising the watch on a diary thread may cause problems to some but the two items are linked and considering the possible time differences in their creation does raise some questions.
Maybe a Diary and Watch thread would be more appropriate then? Sometimes if things are discussed in isolation things can be missed.
Alternatively, the watch could be discussed if it was considered to be One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary?
Do you really think you have seen the word "impossible" stated by this expert?
You are saying that a forger cannot use more than one implement?
Well the only problem it causes is that it is off topic in a thread entitled "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary". Mind you, we seem to have stopped discussing that aeons ago when I provided an incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the diary.
Nice try, Lord Orsam. The jury remains out on your One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary. If it wasn't, we wouldn't all still be here.
As I say, nice try, but you ain't fooling me, son (I mean, Your Lordship)!
However, if David or anyone else feels strongly enough about booting the watch into touch on this thread, maybe they could take it up with Admin? I think it would be a backward step, as it might make the modern hoax theorists appear a bit insecure about their convictions.