-
-
Nice work on the watch. I think it went through Yapp like I think the Diary did.
And I don't know if the Verity Watch cover-up theory was debunked. I can't remember. -
Thanks for posting the link, Jay.
Some would say that Albert Johnson couldn't sell 'Bob' the watch for $125,000 because Robbie Johnson had allegedly part owned it and sold his share to a third party, and that's why it has had to remain in the family to this day.
I'm not sure if that would make sense, as Robbie was accidentally killed back in 1995 and no claimant ever came forward with documentary evidence of such a transaction, so nobody knows how much money was coughed up - if any - in the expectation of owning a share in the watch.
I doubt Albert or his immediate family would have had anything to worry about, legally or financially, had he taken up Bob's very generous offer.
Incidentally, Robbie claimed to believe the watch was genuine, but he condemned the diary as a fake.
Go figure!
Love,
Caz
XI wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm PetersenComment
-
I went and took a cursory look back at the watch history and it certainly doesn’t look to me like the Double Verity Watch Cover-up theory was debunked. All we have is Albert Johnson’s testimony saying he bought the Maybrick watch. The watch salespersons said he pestered them about the watch’s origin but that could be part of an act.
He says his being a Maybrick and buying a Maybrick watch would be a miracle. What about an Ellison Maybrick birthday book having a Johnstone/Johnson on Goodwin St and Albert living on Goodwin? And Olga Ellison’s daughter saying the Johnstones on Goodwin had a Maybrick watch?Comment
-
To clarify, there was no proof there was any Verity watch cover-up, and the onus, as others tell me, is not to disprove theories but to prove them.
There is zero evidence that Albert was a Maybrick. There is no evidence Elizabeth Crawley was illegitimate and even less evidence that James Maybrick would be the father if she were that. For starters, she was born in 1870. Emma Parker did not work for the Maybricks until much later as a nanny, so when the children were born. James Jnr was born in 1882.
It seems Feldman liked the theory of John Over's initials being on the watch and came up with what is nothing more than a pure fantasy theory to me.
As for the address book of Olga Maybrick Ellison, I have never seen it, so I cannot comment, but I do know in Shirley Harrison's book, she wrote:
"Albert Johnson took all this with a wry smile and a pinch of salt. But he maintained that he bought the watch exactly how he said he did. So if he was a Maybrick, he said stumbling across this particular watch 'is a miracle' and being a deeply religious man, that is exactly what he meant."
I would tend to agree.Comment
-
They don’t have to be related. I can tell you now that the Porter branch is debunked as being an illegitimate branch of James Maybrick but I have a picture of what they claim was James’ necktie pin. Only DNA can ultimately prove familial ties or whether they are blood legitimately or otherwise or whether there is deception or ignorance regarding blood relationship.
As far as I can tell, Olga Ellison Maybrick who died in 1989 supposedly told her daughter that someone on Goodwin Ave in Bidston had the watch in the 80s. Could that be Suzanne Murphy’s father? Could it be the Johnstone’s that Melvin Harris found at 160 Goodwin Ave (“George, Margaret and David”)?Comment
-
The reference in Olga's book as I understand was to Johnstone, not Johnson. Feldman liked to use "oral history" to fill in the blanks where documented evidence was not found or available. I'm not saying Olga Maybrick Ellison did not know the Johnsons in the 60s, but that is not confirmation of a watch link. It might be at best confirmation that she knew the family.Originally posted by Markus Aurelius Franzoi View Post
The watch story is oral history provided by her daughter, and the watch itself was never actually mentioned in Olga's address book. Ultimately it is just that she had a name in an address book that could have been the Johnsons. Her daughter's "oral history" did the rest. That makes me suspicious, and I cannot accept it as viable evidence of anything. I give as much weight to it as I do Billy Graham's oral history. That is very little.
I have already firmly proven that Elizabeth Crawley was not James Maybrick's illegitimate child so this whole line of enquiry is rather pointless.Comment
-
I was just refreshing my memory on the subject to see if there was anything interesting and worth pursuing.
Obviously, provenance here is even less important than in the diary. It’s not a work of art either.
Even the doubters say chain of custody is irrelevant with the watch. Someone said you don’t need a receipt to prove the watch went from the father to the son-in-law and daughter at Stewart’s.
We still have no real proof of who sold it to the father and how the seller got it.Comment
-
In my experience, Markus, when people make false claims, they will often make them sound more credible by injecting the odd truth or half truth.
Where the Murphys may have slipped up was to describe a stranger with a Liverpool accent, coming into old Mr Stewart's shop in Lancaster, and selling him the attractive and collectable gold watch that would, several years later, be put on sale and purchased within weeks by Albert Johnson. This was on 14th July 1992, when Robert Smith had only recently begun thrashing out a deal with Mike for his DAiRy. Suspicious or auspicious timing?
It is all too easy for those of us with enquiring, or downright suspicious minds, to fast forward the same scenario - the stranger with the Liverpool accent - coming into Stewarts the Jewellers in Wallasey, in March 1992, and selling the watch to the Murphys, who set about getting the works cleaned and serviced, before giving it a quick polish and putting it in the window hoping for a quick profit. That would be the normal reaction for anyone in that line of business, rather than to leave it in a drawer for years, where it could end up beyond repair or too expensive to do so. But when Albert returned with his brother to ask questions about the watch's history - of which they knew bugger all from before it came into a Stewart's possession - they were worried enough to offer him his money back, and it must have crossed their minds that the watch could have been 'hot' property when that Scouser had appeared with it one day, regardless of which day, month or year that was in reality.
Love,
Caz
XI wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm PetersenComment
-
Since you put it that way, I’m thinking I’m going to have to start agreeing with Jay on the provenance of both.
So the watch was cleaned in 1992 so sometime between January and July when it was sold so around March. And the electricians were at Battlecrease on March 9, 1992 and the call to Doreen was the same day. Now you’re getting into too many coincidences territory.Comment
-
In my experience, Markus, when people make false claims, they will often make them sound more credible by injecting the odd truth or half truth.
So all the major parties in this story (Albert Johnson excluded) were basically in on it from the beginning and were covering up for the thieves who pilfered the items from Battlecrease on March 9, 1992!
Comment
-
In my opinion, yes!Originally posted by Markus Aurelius Franzoi View Post
My belief is that the haul was meant to be found together but was immediately broken up. There might have been other items too. There has been mention of rings, suede bags with old keys, crucifixes - all sorts!
If we can get a confirmation for the above, then I would not hesitate to suggest that some of the items, including the watch, could be trophies from the victims.
* Edit: Just to clarify - I have no idea if a hoard was found or even if one ever existed. My belief (based presently on little proof) is that the watch and scrapbook were found together at Battlecrease at the same time. I do believe the watch was a trophy though.Comment
-
Coincidences happen, of course.Originally posted by Markus Aurelius Franzoi View Post
The blurb below describes a group of lawyers meeting in a Liverpool hotel to discuss reopening the Florence Maybrick case after 103 years. This is only 9 days (or less) before Mike Barrett calls London, saying he has the Diary of Jack the Ripper.
Comment
-
As coincidences goes RJ it’s pretty tame. Not as much as a humdinger of the worksheets and Mike’s phone call on the exact same day.Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
Coincidences happen, of course.
The blurb below describes a group of lawyers meeting in a Liverpool hotel to discuss reopening the Florence Maybrick case after 103 years. This is only 9 days (or less) before Mike Barrett calls London, saying he has the Diary of Jack the Ripper.
That one’s a real zinger.Comment
-
I take it you believe the simultaneous appearance of the Watch and the Diary isn’t just a coincidence.Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
I thought they were. And that the Diary had made other appearances throughout the decades.Now I agree with Jay and yourself I guess.
The Watch and the Diary appeared together because they had the same provenance. No coincidence. It’s either because they were either forged together or came out of a hidey-hole together.
The date of the electrical work is just another coincidence that might be significant but it doesn’t help debunkers or those convinced of forgery. Otherwise the only difference is that you have a nest of forgers and we have a nest of thieves.
We also both have people covering up for the active criminals, shall we say, with phoney provenances.Comment
Tweet
Comment