|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:59 am: |       |
Paul Stephen wrote:
If this really were Maybrick’s watch, then it would have to be his Sunday best. You didn’t go traipsing through a cotton plantation wearing a watch like this. It’s also of a size known as a “dress watch”, as I’ve previously suggested. Owning such a watch with it’s fancy gold chain and seal was your Victorian businessman’s equivalent of owning a Ferrari. It was status.
Why on Earth didn’t our forger buy a period SILVER everyday example for about fifty quid and put his scratches on that? It would be just as believable as Maybrick’s watch, and there would be thousands to choose from, most of which would have had a blank cartouche ready to take a nice fake JM?
I think the idea would be that the hoaxer already had the watch when the newspapers came out with the Maybrick story, rather than that s/he went out and bought a watch specially.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 5:19 am: | |
Hi Chris
It’s plausible I suppose that our hoaxer already had a gold watch to hand, of the correct age and type for it to have been Maybrick’s,and used that when it ocurred to him to create a JTR hoax. He wouldn’t have had a lot of time after all, from the news of the diary coming out, to planting it in Stewart’s window, and praying for a purchaser like Mr Johnson to come along.
I just wondered how likely it would be for anyone to spoil a nice family heirloom in this way, and then to put it on the market at a very reasonable price, to await a purchaser who may or may not notice the scratches.
It’s not something I’d consider doing on the offchance I’d get away with it.
I’m still puzzled!
Regards
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
Paul,
Timing wise, I think it's unlikely that anyone could have made the scratches before Albert bought the watch. The watch was purchased on July 14, 1992. Of course it's not impossible that news of the diary somehow reached a hoaxer prior to it's existence becoming general knowledge in 1993. Mike allegedly had the book in mid 1991, and several people had seen it before it became public knowledge so it isn't inconceivable.
In my opinion, if it's a truly "modern" hoax, it's more likely someone who had access to Albert's watch after he purchased it.
As far as the diary being in a scrapbook, I don't find that at all unusual. The odds of finding a blank Victorian book of any kind is extremely low. However partial scrapbooks with pictures are fairly common at auctions. If a hoaxer wanted to have a genuine Victorian book to write in, it's the easiest and cheapest way to get one without drawing too much attention to yourself.
Regards,
John |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 5:54 pm: | |
Hi Caz
“Paul, perhaps you could comment on the fact that the Murphys were so concerned by the Johnsons’ questions about where the watch had come from that they offered to buy it back. How unusual would that be? Does it indicate that they were worried about something? And why would they be, if they’d had it for some years, as they claimed, and only knew that a stranger had originally sold it to Mrs. Murphy’s father?”
I can only guess from this that the Murphy’s thought that Albert’s constant questioning about the watch’s origins inferred that it may have been stolen at some point, and that Albert had somehow got wind of it. Or were they just sick of being pestered, and thought that by buying it back it may put an end to all the aggravation? I’d plump for the former, as the latter could end up having the reverse effect.
I have been the unwitting recipient of stolen goods bought in good faith, one from a very well known auction house with impeccable credentials, and it’s not a nice feeling even though you have done no wrong yourself.
I had sold one of these, a grandfather clock, before I became aware of any problem via the Police, and would have gladly bought it back to avoid the embarrassment and subsequent investigation.
It turned out fine in the end.
What this says about the Murphys is quite interesting I think. It certainly indicates honest people who want to avoid any contact with the Police. Assuming they aren’t closet Ripperologists desperate to get James’ watch back, I don’t see that they would have any other reason for losing a perfectly good sale which, if the story is true, had earned them a 100% profit.
It also says a lot about Albert too. The fact that he pestered them himself about the watch, and clearly not letting on why he was doing so, indicates to me that he had no real idea himself about it’s origins himself at that point.
Or was this all a really clever sort of double bluff? I don’t think so.
Regards
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 810
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Hi Chris (P),
Without getting too technical, the report suggests that Turgoose did examine the ‘wear’ to the various individual ripper markings (in addition to the way some overlaid others, giving the order in which these were made), and was somehow able to establish that multiple stages of artificial ‘wearing’ would have been necessary – if a modern hoaxer made them.
I may be getting totally the wrong end of the stick here, and hopefully Paul will be able to help me out, but I get the impression that what Turgoose was saying, in effect, is that if all the marks had been made very recently, one after another, and had then been subjected to a single polishing and artificial ‘wearing’ process – ie all in one fell swoop - this would have been obvious under close examination.
In other words, the wear to individual markings was found to be consistent with all the marks having been made a long time ago (or Wild’s ‘several tens of years’ ago - not at least ten, but several tens, as in decades) and then left to age and ‘wear’ naturally, according to depth of individual scratch, implement used and possibly other factors as well. As I say, I could be totally wrong about this.
We don’t know for sure that Wild was given inaccurate information, since it’s possible that Mrs. Murphy’s father did acquire the watch many years ago, and that Albert was told it would have been polished at some point and then again in 1992 when the Murphys suddenly decided to sell it.
But I agree it may have been better if no such information had been given to Wild, regardless of accuracy - especially as this is now being claimed to have influenced his findings. Of course, no professional forensic examiner should ever allow any such influence to creep into his work, and one hopes that Wild would not have hesitated to report anything that conflicted with information supplied.
I’m not ‘pro-Maybrick’, neither does the gender of the watch matter to me in the slightest, as I’ve already said many times. I never realised it was such a big deal until now, so didn’t think to check anyone’s opinions before. All I did last week was to pick up a book we have at home and found all the evidence I will ever need that the Maybrick watch just so happens to be a typical example of a Victorian man’s pocket watch. Still no big deal and the end of that particular chapter as far as I’m concerned.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on March 03, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 811
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Hi John,
Note the crucial words: ‘…where crossing does occur’.
I don’t know which photos you are using, but the clearest ones I have in front of me indicate that the only victims’ initials that appear to cross over any of the words are ‘M N’ (over ‘J Maybrick’) and ‘M K’ (over ‘Jack’).
The ‘E S’ possibly crosses over the ‘M N’, and we know the ‘H 9 3’ crosses over ‘Jack’, but that’s your lot. So unless Turgoose used some other unspecified method to determine that ‘I am Jack’ was made before the separate ‘M N’ or ‘A C’, perhaps you ought not to get your hopes up too much.
I won’t be writing off the Dundas testimony, despite the doubts over why he would have inspected the surface in question in the course of his work on the watch. But as I said, he was out by nearly a year over the earliest time that Murphy could have asked him if he’d seen any ripper markings. Dundas may well have wondered if his work was being questioned. Was he even told by Murphy which part of the watch he was talking about, and why he was asking?
If Dundas didn’t completely understand the nature of the question, and couldn’t recall seeing any such markings, he could well have felt pretty defensive. Was Murphy suggesting the markings were definitely there and should have been obvious to Dundas, if he had done the job he was asked to do? It’s a dilemma for Dundas if he doesn’t know what is being suggested. When he says he didn’t see anything, is he going to leave himself open?
We know what Dundas did say, and I have no reason to think he lied about not seeing the scratches. But as soon as he appreciated that the question mark was over the markings being there at all when he serviced the watch, he may have breathed a sigh of relief - better to be able to put his own lack of observation down to a lack of anything to observe, than to leave open the possibility of him missing something like this. It may not have occurred to Dundas that, if the job had not required him to inspect the scratched surface, he could simply have said he would not have seen anything anyway.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on March 03, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 812
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
Anyone hoaxing the watch wouldn’t have known about the existence of a Maybrick-as-ripper diary until the bare facts broke in the newspapers circa April 1993, almost immediately followed by cries of ‘hoax’ from ripper experts. Albert then revealed his ‘discovery’ at the beginning of June 1993, before knowing what was in the diary, or how the pre-publication investigation into its authenticity was coming along. Had proof emerged that the diary was indeed ‘a shabby hoax’, or had Mike confessed at that point to being involved in forgery and produced a Sphere Vol.2 with proof of how long he had owned it, Albert would no doubt have looked more than red-faced and daft with his £225 watch all scratched. Mike would have faced prison and Albert would not have been able to face anyone.
I am still trying to figure out if there is a possible connection between Mike taking the diary to London in April 1992 and the Murphys suddenly deciding to get the watch out of mothballs and up for sale, apparently around the same time. It would make perfect sense to me if Albert’s questions and obvious curiosity, a year or so after his purchase, led to the Murphys offer to buy it back - if they weren’t sure about its recent history, and had reason to think they might have acquired stolen property, albeit in good faith. As you say, it would show an honest and natural concern for their reputation, and an equally natural desire to avoid any chance of potential customers seeing the police arriving to ask questions.
But the Murphys said that old Mr. Stewart had bought the watch several years previously. So would they really need to be concerned at all, given the time lapse, and the number of hands the watch had apparently passed through since anyone could have nicked it from somewhere? The story goes that a stranger came into Mr. Stewart’s shop trying to flog him the watch, but a price could not be agreed at first. The stranger left the shop but Mr. Stewart called him back and a deal was done. However ‘dodgy’ this may have seemed to the Murphys on reflection, as a result of Albert and Robbie’s insistent questions, would they have gladly shelled out £225 that they had made a year before, for the return of a watch that could be a liability, on the off-chance that Mrs M’s dad (by 1993 long-retired and suffering from dementia) may have unknowingly bought a watch from someone who was not its legitimate owner?
I don’t know. But I imagine if the same stranger had done his deal with the Murphys themselves in early 1992, and they had got it serviced and in the window at the first opportunity, things might have looked a lot more ‘dodgy’ all round by mid-1993 – quite apart from the Murphys having a more understandable reason for taking the watch back.
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
Caroline Morris
Without getting too technical, the report suggests that Turgoose did examine the ‘wear’ to the various individual ripper markings (in addition to the way some overlaid others, giving the order in which these were made), and was somehow able to establish that multiple stages of artificial ‘wearing’ would have been necessary – if a modern hoaxer made them.
I may be getting totally the wrong end of the stick here, and hopefully Paul will be able to help me out, but I get the impression that what Turgoose was saying, in effect, is that if all the marks had been made very recently, one after another, and had then been subjected to a single polishing and artificial ‘wearing’ process – ie all in one fell swoop - this would have been obvious under close examination.
In other words, the wear to individual markings was found to be consistent with all the marks having been made a long time ago (or Wild’s ‘several tens of years’ ago - not at least ten, but several tens, as in decades) and then left to age and ‘wear’ naturally, according to depth of individual scratch, implement used and possibly other factors as well. As I say, I could be totally wrong about this.
Thanks for these comments, but I do find it hard to imagine how these deductions could have been made about separate stages of wear between the different initials. I presume the reasoning isn't explained explicitly, as it's not clear to you with the report in front of you.
Probably there's not much point the rest of us speculating, in the circumstances, but I'm still curious how these intermediate stages of wear square with the idea that Maybrick made the scratches over the course of a few months in the 1880s.
We don’t know for sure that Wild was given inaccurate information, since it’s possible that Mrs. Murphy’s father did acquire the watch many years ago, and that Albert was told it would have been polished at some point and then again in 1992 when the Murphys suddenly decided to sell it.
Hmmm. If this were the case, and Wild was told that someone had tried to polish out the scratches 6-10 years previously, but not told about a second attempt 18 months earlier, that would concern me even more.
But I agree it may have been better if no such information had been given to Wild, regardless of accuracy - especially as this is now being claimed to have influenced his findings.
According to the extracts posted previously, it did, at least to the extent that, after several "coulds" and "woulds", he said, This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years.
You've drawn a distinction between this and the final conclusion that From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is at least several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
In the extract printed by Harrison, a similar statement, but qualified by Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment ..., immediately follows Harrison's mention of the brass slivers, "blackened with age".
It would be interesting to know if the "several tens of years" conclusion comes principally from considering the brass slivers. It would also be interesting to know whether Turgoose attached much importance to the brass slivers. Harrison mentions in passing that he also saw some, but that's all.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:00 am: | |
Caroline Morris wrote:
I am still trying to figure out if there is a possible connection between Mike taking the diary to London in April 1992 and the Murphys suddenly deciding to get the watch out of mothballs and up for sale, apparently around the same time.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand what possible connection there could be, unless you're hinting at some sort of collusion between Barrett and Murphy? Johnson would have to be in on the act too, otherwise Murphy's action in selling the watch just as the action was getting going would be absolutely inexplicable!
Unless a number of people are conspiring together and lying, anyone arguing for genuineness surely has to face the facts that the two artefacts would have parted company decades before, and that the scratches on the watch would have been first identified within a month or so of the diary being publicised.
The odds of that happening after more than a century are obviously something on the order of one in a thousand. Maybrickites would have to get over that improbability, even if the diary were genuine.
That's why I think it's reasonable for the rest of us to expect very strong, clear evidence before accepting the watch as genuine.
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 7:53 am: | |
Hi All,
I'm on domestic house cleaning and maintenance duties for the next few days, so my "Jack" time is limited. :-( I will try and check in and post occasionally, but my wife is sure to keep me a busy man for at least a time.
Caz,
"I may be getting totally the wrong end of the stick here, and hopefully Paul will be able to help me out, but I get the impression that what Turgoose was saying, in effect, is that if all the marks had been made very recently, one after another, and had then been subjected to a single polishing and artificial ‘wearing’ process – ie all in one fell swoop - this would have been obvious under close examination."
Nope, you're absolutely right there. That's what I've been saying for years. The question though is between what scratches was the polishing/weathering applied. It would make sense if the "Maybrick Marks" were laid down in single layer, and there was polishing between the various "repair marks". But if for example there were no signs of polishing between application of the "repair marks", that would be really suspicious.
"In other words, the wear to individual markings was found to be consistent with all the marks having been made a long time ago (or Wild’s ‘several tens of years’ ago - not at least ten, but several tens, as in decades) and then left to age and ‘wear’ naturally, according to depth of individual scratch, implement used and possibly other factors as well."
The scratches wouldn't 'wear' naturally, that had to be the result of polishing or some other physical interaction with the watch. Hence Turgooses comment on "depending on the polishing regime".
"But I agree it may have been better if no such information had been given to Wild, regardless of accuracy - especially as this is now being claimed to have influenced his findings. Of course, no professional forensic examiner should ever allow any such influence to creep into his work, and one hopes that Wild would not have hesitated to report anything that conflicted with information supplied."
I disagree on a couple of points here. I think it would have been very helpful if they knew that the "Maybrick Marks" (I am Jack, the victims initials, etc) would have been laid down in a short period of time if authentic. Additionally, neither Wild nor Turgoose are professional forensic examiners. Nor are they experts in dating scratches. Dr. Turgoose worked in the Corrosion Protection Center at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, while Dr. Wild is a metallurgist with the Interface Analysis Center at Bristol University.
"The ‘E S’ possibly crosses over the ‘M N’, and we know the ‘H 9 3’ crosses over ‘Jack’, but that’s your lot. So unless Turgoose used some other unspecified method to determine that ‘I am Jack’ was made before the separate ‘M N’ or ‘A C’, perhaps you ought not to get your hopes up too much."
There's always the possibility of superficial scratches that might pass over one and underneath the other, but it's probably not something he would have specifically looked for.
"Anyone hoaxing the watch wouldn’t have known about the existence of a Maybrick-as-ripper diary until the bare facts broke in the newspapers circa April 1993, almost immediately followed by cries of ‘hoax’ from ripper experts."
I wouldn't necessarily agree here. Several people knew of is existence prior to that time and someone could have talked. Indeed, given Mike's drinking it seems unlikely that no one at the local pub heard ANYTHING.
"I am still trying to figure out if there is a possible connection between Mike taking the diary to London in April 1992 and the Murphys suddenly deciding to get the watch out of mothballs and up for sale, apparently around the same time."
I'm with Chris. Unless somehow Murphy became aware of Mike's activities and decided to take advantage of it, and there was some form of collusion it seems unlikely. The only potentially viable scenarios I see there, is that maybe he put the scratches in with the idea of profiting and then chickened out and sold it, that it was done as a practical joke, or as some form of collusion with Mike to support the diary with the hopes that the "new" owner would come forward.
It just seems really unlikely to me.
Chris P.,
"It would be interesting to know if the "several tens of years" conclusion comes principally from considering the brass slivers. It would also be interesting to know whether Turgoose attached much importance to the brass slivers."
Judging from what Turgoose had said regarding how the scratches could have been made recently and artificially aged, it doesn't seem like he attached a great deal of significance to the particles.
Regards,
John |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Hi Caz and all
This really is getting QUITE interesting now. I’m going to try and digest it all properly and will add my thoughts when I’ve done, for what they’re worth, but in the meantime…
Whether Maybrick’s or not, these scratches are either very old or are intended to make us believe that fact. Chris P makes a very good point, and one that I had been pondering myself, that either way, these scratches, the ones allegedly by Maybrick, would all have been made within a few months of each other at the most.
Where they cross it has been possible to ascertain that they were made in the “right” order and that is no problem, but because of where they are located, deep inside the watch, would not have been subject to much genuine wear at all during the watches life, so intermediate wear between these particular scratches seems highly unlikely.
The two apparent repair marks appear on the face of it to be one before, and one after the Maybrick marks, and you might expect more wear on the former, and less on the latter, but that’s bye the bye.
Is it possible Caz, from the way the report is worded, to interpret all this multi-staged wearing and polishing to have happened “post Maybrick” scratchings? That is, various polishing methods were used to wear all the scratches in various different ways but all at the same time? It would make a heck of a lot more sense to me if it did.
It would also explain to me precisely why the inside of that case looks as it does today.
We’ll get to the bottom of this yet. I can feel it in my water!
Regards
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 9:21 am: | |
Caroline Morris wrote:
I’m not ‘pro-Maybrick’, neither does the gender of the watch matter to me in the slightest, as I’ve already said many times. I never realised it was such a big deal until now, so didn’t think to check anyone’s opinions before. All I did last week was to pick up a book we have at home and found all the evidence I will ever need that the Maybrick watch just so happens to be a typical example of a Victorian man’s pocket watch. Still no big deal and the end of that particular chapter as far as I’m concerned.
Actually, I will just come back and comment on this, as I thought it was a particularly unhelpful response.
If you don't want to discuss the gender of the watch, fair enough, but the reason I mentioned it was that you had used it in your previous post, apparently as a means of questioning the credibility of Dundas's evidence.
As expert opinions have differed about this, I think people ought to be prepared to back up their statement, particularly if those statements are an implicit attack on someone else's professional reputation.
"I've seen the evidence but I'm not going to tell you what it is" is a very unsatisfactory response...
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Chris--Hi. If I recall, Albert Johnson bought the watch for his granddaughter, no? Cheers
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 814
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
Hi All,
I did say I wasn’t going to get too technical, firstly because it would involve quoting extensively from the report (don’t worry, plans are afoot to ask for permission to get them both published somehow), and secondly because I don’t claim to fully understand it all myself!
Turgoose talks about ‘mounds’ and ‘smoothing’ and goes into details about the different amount and type of ‘wear’ he observed, according, as I have already explained, to factors such as the shape and depth of each scratch mark, type of implement used and so on. I don’t see how it could possibly be determined whether the markings were made all on the same day, or in dribs and drabs over the course of a few weeks or months. But once made, they would all start to age in their own way.
The term ‘intermediate’ is, I think, merely used to describe the stages a hoaxer working very recently would have to have gone through – ie scratch/age/polish, new implement/next scratch/age/polish etc, to achieve the individual effects actually observed by Turgoose using his sophisticated equipment. It’s difficult for me to put it any more clearly than that and I still could be wrong.
Chris, why would it concern you if Albert told Wild about an earlier polishing but not about a later one? And who says he didn’t tell him about both? And why is it relevant anyway, since Wild’s observations would have been exactly the same – his opinion was that the ripper markings were made before all the polishing marks. So if more than one polishing session was involved, only the earliest one would be relevant.
Don’t worry, I’m not hinting at any collusion between Barrett and Murphy – I have no idea if they have even met. And I certainly have no reason to believe the Murphys knew what might have been inside the watch when they put it up for sale.
This gender business is really getting daft. If Albert had claimed he bought a modern man’s watch for his granddaughter to wear it would be odd. But buying an antique Victorian pocket watch as an investment for a grandchild makes the gender of the watch and the gender of the grandchild rather fade into insignificance doesn’t it? Incidentally, Albert himself describes it as a 'dress' watch, and is rather amused by arguments over it being a lady's watch that no self-respecting serial killer would have been seen dead with. 
Chris, there is nothing secretive about this ‘evidence’. Hubby got all his watch books long before I’d even heard of the diary. If I can grab a book and find page after page of watches made for either or both genders and determine quickly and easily that Albert’s is a man’s pocket watch, and too large to have been made for a Victorian lady, I’m sure it can’t be beyond anyone else to do the same – if they really want to know.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
I didn’t sleep too well last night…
Tossing and turning, the damned H 9 3 imprinted on the back of my brain and tapping at my temples every time I dozed off, saying, “Waddya make of me then, eh? eh?”
“I dunno, leave me alone, lemme sleep.”
Then Sir Jim came to me in a dream – not James Maybrick – it was definitely Sir Jim, the secret personality picked up and dropped at whim. “What is your whim, Sir Jim?” says I. “I’m tired and I just want some peace. Shuffle off and take that damned H 9 3 with you.”
“Ha ha ha ha ha ha”, laughs Sir Jim, his eyes misty with merriment. “If that’s a genuine repair mark”, says he, the laughter hitting a hysterical note, “then I’m Jack the Ripper!!”
And do you know what? As I finally felt myself drifting off into deep, delicious and dreamless sleep, I fancy I was touched by the madness for a second or two – I actually began to believe he might be right.
(Reader’s voice: “Now what are the chances of that happening?”  )
I didn’t sleep too well last night… but never felt better and more refreshed than I did when I awoke this morning.
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Caroline Morris wrote:
Chris, why would it concern you if Albert told Wild about an earlier polishing but not about a later one? And who says he didn’t tell him about both? And why is it relevant anyway, since Wild’s observations would have been exactly the same – his opinion was that the ripper markings were made before all the polishing marks. So if more than one polishing session was involved, only the earliest one would be relevant.
If Wild said that "the ripper markings were made before all the polishing marks", that's news to me, and obviously it would affect the importance of what he was told. (It would also imply, on any assumption, that the watch wasn't polished for the first 40 years of its life, so I would find it a bit surprising.)
The excerpt relating to the 6-10 year polishing seemed to me to relate to the most recent polishing - after all presumably the watch would have been polished umpteen times over the previous 150 years - otherwise, why on earth pick that particular polishing to comment on? That's why it would matter if Wild wasn't told that the watch had been promised more recently.
On the whole, perhaps it would be better to suspend further discussion of the scientific evidence, if there is a prospect of its being published. Most of us are partly speculating about the content at the moment.
Chris, there is nothing secretive about this ‘evidence’. Hubby got all his watch books long before I’d even heard of the diary. If I can grab a book and find page after page of watches made for either or both genders and determine quickly and easily that Albert’s is a man’s pocket watch, and too large to have been made for a Victorian lady, I’m sure it can’t be beyond anyone else to do the same – if they really want to know.
Thanks for enlightening us that your determination was based on the size of the watch. That's useful information, though there are still the contrary opinions of Dangar and others. I note also that Paul Stephen in his post on sexing watches, said Normally the difference between the two is obvious due to their relative sizes, but when you get a very small example as we are dealing with here, then other things must be considered too.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
Hi Chris
“I note also that Paul Stephen in his post on sexing watches, said Normally the difference between the two is obvious due to their relative sizes, but when you get a very small example as we are dealing with here, then other things must be considered too.”
I did say that Chris. I then went on to explain what those “other things” were, and how they applied to this very watch. This, I believe, was also before Caz explained that it was 45mm in diameter. It looked smaller to me in Albert Johnson’s apparently large hands.
It’s a MANS pocket watch. Victorian women NEVER wore pocket watches anyway, as they didn’t have pockets in their frocks to put them in.
As Caz so rightly says, there are dozens of books you can use to verify this fact if it’s important to you.
Hi Caz
If we could get hold of the reports some day it would indeed be a Godsend. I think I’m beginning to see a bit of sense here from what we are allowed to be told, and I’m beginning to see why Turgoose in particular came to the conclusions he did. The bit that still bothers me though, is that you would expect all of the Maybrick scratches to have similar amounts of wear if they were in fact genuinely old.
The “mounds” are of course the raised sides of the scratches. Think of the “sand analogy” again. It is these mounds that are removed or reduced by later polishing, leaving just the bare scratch far less legible.
Brilliant second post today BTW…! I have to say that H 9/3 occupied my mind until sleep kicked in for the last couple of nights too. I’m not too sure Sir Jim was there quite, but a certain gent in Edwardian dress crept into my mind, huddled over a newly cleaned watch, meticulously scratching his trade mark H in a beautifully neat hand over a barely legible 15 year old “scratch”.
I have a strong suspicion he did us all a big favour without knowing it.
Regards
Paul
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi again Chris and All
I’ve just been re-reading the last umpteen watch posts and trying to get all of this straight in my mind.
“If Wild said that "the ripper markings were made before all the polishing marks", that's news to me, and obviously it would affect the importance of what he was told. (It would also imply, on any assumption, that the watch wasn't polished for the first 40 years of its life, so I would find it a bit surprising.)
The excerpt relating to the 6-10 year polishing seemed to me to relate to the most recent polishing - after all presumably the watch would have been polished umpteen times over the previous 150 years - otherwise, why on earth pick that particular polishing to comment on? That's why it would matter if Wild wasn't told that the watch had been promised more recently.”
That first part, Chris, is to my mind highly significant. If the “ripper” marks were made before all the polishing marks, then this points strongly towards them being “tens of years old”. If this is what Wild says then it’s the first time that fact has come out to my knowledge, and is vital to the understanding of this issue.
Gold doesn’t tarnish, so it would be more surprising if it turned out that the inside surface of the watch had been polished in the first 40 years of it’s life.
Pocket watches went rapidly out of fashion by the end of WW1, so you must bear in mind that this watch almost certainly spent more than 50% of it’s life in a drawer somewhere. Unloved, and un-polished. Also if the story were true, it’s owner died in 1889, and it went out of use then, until JO got hold of it anyhow!
All of this means surely that whether Wild was told about polishing 6 – 10 years ago or not, it really doesn’t matter.
Those marks on the insides of that watch are a determined effort to get rid of the scratches. I’m certain of it. The apparent scouring bears this out big-time.
This just gets more and more fascinating…
Regards to one and all,
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 6:37 pm: | |
All,
Ok, a few quick thoughts.
1) We don't know that the "H 9/3" is a repair mark. Usually repair marks indicate the repairer and the date of repair. (Maybe it's supposed to indicate the day Maybrick went home after Nichol's killing.) The "H 9/3" is a bit light on any information a watch repairer might find useful from the research I've done. (I could be wrong here, but I can't see how that could convey any useful information. Even if the "H" is the mark of the repairer, 9/3 doesn't give a full date. Most importantly it doesn't give a YEAR.)
2) Even if it *is* a repair mark, it cannot be dated (even speculatively) without further information on the degree of mounding on the "H 9/3" in regards to the "I am Jack" markings, so it doesn't really validate the age of the thing based on the fact it crosses the "J". And without something to externally date the "H 9/3", it can't be used to say that the watch marks must be older than "<x>" date.
3) Even if it can be dated back to the late 19th/early 20th century that doesn't make Maybrick the Ripper.
4) It seems rather odd that someone would make a "repair mark" OVER another scratch when there was plenty of blank room to be written in. (Unless one wanted it to go over another one to give it an appearance of age of course.)
5) Repair marks are hardly a secret, and it's certainly possible a hoaxer might make cryptic marks to increase the impression of age. Repair marks are still in use in the UK and an effort was made in 1996 to standardize them to aid in the tracing of stolen goods. They could also be (or hoaxed to be) pawn marks. They could simply be gibberish.
6) There's some interesting information coming out, but it requires verification before it can be taken as proof of anything. What it really does is open some interesting new questions that need to be investigated.
Regards,
John
P.S. You were absolutely correct about the removing the scratches as enhancing the value of the watch. I've been digging and found several watches at auction proclaiming "no repair marks!" |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 3:11 am: | |
Paul Stephen wrote:
Pocket watches went rapidly out of fashion by the end of WW1, so you must bear in mind that this watch almost certainly spent more than 50% of it’s life in a drawer somewhere. Unloved, and un-polished. Also if the story were true, it’s owner died in 1889, and it went out of use then, until JO got hold of it anyhow!
Thanks for that information. I was speculating previously about when this type of watch might have stopped being worn, but didn't realise it would have been so early.
On that basis, we can say that most of the watch's working life is likely to have been pre-Maybrick. Just over 40 years before Maybrick, about 30 years after.
So we can agree that if virtually all the superficial scratch marks were later than the Maybrick scratches, this would not reflect "daily wear and tear", but a deliberate attempt:
(1) Either to remove the scratches (apparently done by someone before it was acquired by Mrs Murphy's father)
(2) Or to age the scratches artificially.
The scientific evidence doesn't help us to distinguish between these, unless we can do this on the basis of the brass slivers. Or, if Turgoose is correct that H 9 3 or whatever was later than "I am Jack", and we can determine from other considerations that "H 9 3" is an old mark.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 816
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 4:41 am: | |
Hi Chris (P),
I thought it had been established long since that Wild’s statement about the indication that the markings were certainly older than ten years directly related to the polishing marks he found. His opinion was that, because the silver enrichment at the base of the markings was greater than on the original watch surface, this indicated that the markings were made before the watch surface was polished.
And as we also knew already, Turgoose reported that all the superficial scratches examined (including the polishing marks) post-dated the markings.
Perhaps this ‘secret’ surface didn’t get polished very often before the marks were made, or perhaps the superficial scratches (common to all soft gold surfaces, according to Paul, and visible under a magnifying glass in my own example of a lady’s Victorian pendant watch with its own ‘secret’ surface), in place before all the markings and subsequent scratches were made, were just too faint and insignificant to be included in the examinations, as Turgoose’s own words suggest: ‘it is clear that the engravings predate the vast majority of superficial surface scratches (all of those examined)’.
I truly thought all this had been discussed here many times in the past.
I didn’t say my determination that we are talking about a man’s watch was based on its size. I said I identified it ‘quickly and easily’ as a man’s ‘pocket’ watch, ‘and’ it was too large to be a lady’s watch. You seem to have missed a great chunk of posts where Paul and I talked about size, among other things like style, and established how large Albert’s actually is. It’s a wee bit frustrating if we have to repeat ourselves several times before each penny drops. Just for the record, Albert’s example is not as ornate and ‘dressy’ as many of those in hubby’s book of a similar size.
Hi John,
The H 9 3 is very close to the 1275, which might indicate a repairer wanting to keep all such marks together so as not to detract unnecessarily from the appearance of the rest of the surface.
Of course, Dundas did mention repair marks being in the watch, didn’t he? So if one of these was the H 9 3, it was there in 1992.
We know the Murphys claimed to have tried to polish out scratches with jeweller’s rouge, so it was presumably the scouring marks they would have noticed (and which Dundas may or may not have had occasion to notice), which obscured all the ripper markings that no one apparently noticed until Albert and his workmates held that surface up to the light a year or so later.
Love,
Caz
PS Hypothesis coming up that requires a sharp intake of breath and a very open mind.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 817
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
The diarist claims to have discussed the murders with his best friend, George Davidson, agreeing that they could not happen in Liverpool, where women could walk the streets in safety. The diarist writes: Indeed they can for I will not play my funny little games on my own doorstep. ha ha
Tonight I will celebrate by wining and dining… who? A female, surely? No indeed – his best friend, George Davidson.
George visited me today. I believe he knows what I am going through, although he says nothing. I can see it in his eyes. Poor George, he is such a good friend.
Maybrick died in the arms of his close friend, George Davidson. He was not called to give evidence at Florie’s trial, and his relationship to Maybrick was apparently not widely known.
Poor George, he was such a good friend.
On or around February 10, 1893, George went missing. On March 9 1893, the Liverpool Echo reported that the body of a cotton broker, George Davidson, had been found ‘yesterday’ [March 8] at Millom, Cumbria, on a bleak stretch of coast. The verdict was Found drowned.
An old friend of the previous 23 years told the Millom News, for an article they published on March 11, that he had last seen George on the afternoon of February 9, in the Liverpool Exchange. For about two or three weeks he had complained of being unable to sleep. He frequently got up during the night and went for a walk and a smoke round the square. His landlady thought she heard the front door close about 12.30 on the morning of the 10th, and about 10 am he was found to be missing. The deceased’s watch was found under his pillow… The deceased was, according to this old friend, a strong minded man, and not one at all likely to commit suicide. There was apparently nothing in the state of his affairs which would have led him to do so.
Might James have given a watch that was in his possession to his close friend on his death bed?
Might George have had such a watch serviced and repaired in early 1893, nearly five years after James’ death, in May 1889?
And could the repairer have drawn poor George’s attention to some odd scratchings he noticed as he was making his own mark? Their meaning may not have registered with the repairer, if he bothered to read them properly.
But could George have worked them out for himself, frantically beginning to put all the awful pieces together, going back to his movements with James in 1888 to 9 and realising that it was all just possible?
Or was our watch hoaxer even more subtle and clever and lucky than anyone has previously thought in their wildest dreams or nightmares?
Have a great weekend everyone. Handwriting post coming up shortly under the appropriate thread.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on March 05, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 5:39 am: | |
Caroline Morris wrote:
I thought it had been established long since that Wild’s statement about the indication that the markings were certainly older than ten years directly related to the polishing marks he found. His opinion was that, because the silver enrichment at the base of the markings was greater than on the original watch surface, this indicated that the markings were made before the watch surface was polished.
And as we also knew already, Turgoose reported that all the superficial scratches examined (including the polishing marks) post-dated the markings.
I'm quite happy to agree we are going round in circles, based on this showing.
It would really help if you could be clear about which bits of these summaries are your added interpretations, and which really come from Wild and Turgoose.
For the first paragraph, here is what Wild actually said, once again:
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This could explain why the silver enrichment at the base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch surface and would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years.
Is there any point in saying, firstly, that this is qualified by three "woulds" and a "could", secondly that it is based on incorrect information about when the watch was cleaned, and thirdly that this version from the final report is diametrically opposed to Wild concluded on the same evidence, in his earlier draft:
little can be said about the age of the scratches from this.
This is very far from supporting your previous assertion that his opinion was that the ripper markings were made before all the polishing marks.
I'm afraid the charm of this debate has now worn rather thin, as far as I'm concerned.
I think that unless there's a way of getting at what Turgoose and Wild actually said, rather than the stuff we're getting now, there's little point in continuing to speculate.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
Caroline Morris wrote:
You seem to have missed a great chunk of posts where Paul and I talked about size, among other things like style, and established how large Albert’s actually is. It’s a wee bit frustrating if we have to repeat ourselves several times before each penny drops.
As I said, I have read Paul's posts on this, but I'm unable to find anything by you on it (in this thread) before you mentioned looking at the book you have. Apart from statements that you didn't think it mattered whether it was a man's or a woman's.
If you did post anything previously, maybe you could be good enough to point me towards it (otherwise it may become "a wee bit frustrating").
Needless to say, the gender of the watch would be rather relevant to the new suggestion that Maybrick could have given the watch to George Davidson.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
Hi Caz
“The H 9 3 is very close to the 1275, which might indicate a repairer wanting to keep all such marks together so as not to detract unnecessarily from the appearance of the rest of the surface.”
Absolutely right. I have seen this on many occasions on clocks as well as on watches. Subsequent repair marks are almost always done immediately adjacent to the previous one. Watchmakers are tidy minded people who wouldn’t be in the profession if they weren’t.
Hi All
I was going to put something together about what scratches are legitimately found inside Victorian English watches next week, but maybe now it may help. I know John H has looked into this himself, so it will be interesting to hear what you think John.
In my experience, and more importantly in the experience of colleagues I have spoken to, there are three main reasons why you will find scratches within a watch case of this period.
The first is concerned with the manufacture of the watch, and is to ensure the right movement goes into the right case. Verity would buy an unfinished movement from one of the large manufacturers and an appropriate case from another. He would “finish” the watch according to his own, or his customer’s customers taste and wallet, and engrave his own name on as if he had been the maker. In reality all Verity was, was a finisher and retailer. This is how the clock and watch business worked at that time in England.
Some of these manufacturer/finisher scratch marks have been determined to be a sort of code, applied by the casemakers, to ensure the right case goes to the right watch. This is sometimes found on the back of dials too, and is for the same purpose.
However as at least one of the “non-maybrick” scratches goes over the J of Jack, it seems an impossibility that this is what they are.
The second has been discussed here before, and is where a repairer leaves behind his own identifiable mark for future reference, and to protect him against fraudulent claims under guarantee. Logically this should be a date, and 9/3 is likely to mean Sept 1903.
It is very likely that this is the case with this watch.
The third is that it could be a “pawn mark”, put there to identify whose watch it is. H 9/3 could be ledger H, page 9, line 3, or anything else you could come up with. As a pawn mark it could also mean 9th March I suppose, although I don’t think it’s likely.
The fact is that a repair or pawn mark shows that the watch was repaired or pawned, AFTER the Maybrick scratches were made. This, if true, would demolish any suggestion of a hoax being perpetrated since the diary surfaced in 1991.
All I have said here is independently verifiable by anyone with sufficient interest to get permission to look in the back of a few old watches, or to talk to repairers in the UK with sufficient knowledge and experience of Victorian watches.
The H 9/3 mark is so perfect and “right” for a repair mark, that I’d stake my life on it being just that.
This watch has been discussed to death, both here and elsewhere, and the significance of this is only just beginning to surface. Knowledgeable people have seen both the watch and the two reports, but none of them seems to have been sufficiently interested in both old watches and JTR to have picked up on this, until now.
If our hoaxer alone made this connection, and put his H 9/3 in exactly the right place, exactly the right style etc. then he has just gone up in my estimation from “Brilliant” to “Genius”.
Regards
Paul
P.S. Caz. I loved the “speculation”. Unfortunately its just too close to Feldman’s rather less convincing theory for it to be true……
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
