The Inconvenient Truth of The Maybrick Watch

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

Here's a sample of the letter K done by someone in the Kruger shop, in block letters but stylized.

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

Here’s a direct comparison of the possible K of the possible watch servicer to the Maybrick watch repair H or K.

[Caroline Brown]

Caz,

It's so nice of you to help RJ out with his theorizing. Maybe he'll reciprocate and help us in return.

I really can't help him anymore. He's not accepting of a hand from me anyway. Maybe he doesn't want his drawers exposed. Sorry about that.

Maybe you can help me too. Right now I think the H is possibly a K for Kruger. No response from Mr K yet. But any ideas on why the Murphy's would say it was repaired by Dundas instead of Kruger if Kruger did the job?

Hi Markus,

Your guess would be as good as mine, if not better.

We don't appear to know how many watches passed through Dundas's hands in the Spring of 1992, nor how many the Murphys had serviced/repaired by Dundas or anyone else. It would seem problematic, timewise [ha ha], for Kruger to have received Albert's watch from the Murphys as early as 9th March 1992 and stamped his initial and the date in it. So if the 9/3 doesn't refer to that magical date, or any date at all, the H or K may not refer to a repairer's initial either.

All we can safely say is that if Albert's watch was serviced by Dundas, he recalled nothing useful about it a year later, going on to describe some other watch, which may or may not have come from the Murphys at some point. That should not be difficult for anyone to process, since human error regarding details and especially dates is the norm, while perfect recall is anything but. With no paper trail or similar documentary evidence to help, few of us would be able to give an accurate and consistent account of some insignificant event in our daily lives from even a few months ago. No blame should be attached to Dundas or the Murphys, if they merely forgot a detail here or a date there, but caution is essential when anyone claims to be certain about something they couldn't reasonably be certain about.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

They are scared of the notorious Eddie Lyons gang, terror of Liverpool South? Let me kick the tires.

While it is true that we have been told that Eddie sported the gangster handle of "Fat Eddie Lyons," the photograph in the Jones and Dolgin book shows a friendly-looking man with a twinkle in his eye. He might weigh 125 pounds sopping wet. I also recall a story of Mike being so spectacularly unafraid of Eddie that he stormed down to his house, telling him to abandon his poorly conceived plot of hoodwinking Smith and Feldman with a phony provenance story--which he promptly did.

That doesn't sound like fear.

Which leaves us with your first option: Mike and Anne were up to their throats in the 'forgery.'

And although we have been recently and confidently informed by Caroline Brown that Anne Graham would have been "free and clear" of the electricians by 1995, that same summer Anne Graham was so "visibly distressed" by the sight of the terrifyingly tweeded Martin Fido, quaker and university don, that she beat a hasty retreat for the nearest washroom.

I hold to the eccentric and wildly improbable theory that the future authoress of a biography of Florence Maybrick had helped her abusive husband create the hoax, believing in her own words that the literary agent would 'just send Mike packing.' When they didn't, she was caught-off guard and from then on became a participant in events that were increasingly out of her control, hence the fear and 'visible distress.'

Of course, I've been called crazy for these beliefs. I live in a 'fantasy world.'

Since I have agreed to withdraw from this 'debate,' I'll leave you with the following speculation.

If there was anyone in our saga who might have been actually terrified of Liverpool's underworld, it was Robbie Johnson.

When I exchanged a few messages with Shirley Harrison twenty years ago, she kept mentioning that Robbie was in debt. I think she meant this to be an explanation for Robbie's "eagerness" over the sale of the watch.

She never said why he was in debt--but someone said something about horse racing, but that seems unlikely to me, unless he was in the hands of the moneylenders.

More relevant I think, is the fact that when Robbie was arrested roughly 18 months before the watch etchings came to light, he was carrying 15,000 pounds in currency which was promptly confiscated by the police. For most of us, that was a lot of money in 1991-1992.

15,000 pounds. Remember that.

He was also carrying 5 kilos (11 pounds) of cannabis resin. Hartley is inaccurate. He was not arrested for selling dope. He was arrested for possession with intent to deliver or sell. It sounds to me like Robbie was acting as a drug 'mule,' and I'm guessing that some nasty person out there would have wanted his 15,000 pounds back. Maybe there were further complications, but it must have been something along those lines.

Fresh out of the clink, Robbie somehow finagled his way into 25% ownership of the watch even though it was supposedly bought for Albert's granddaughter. A scratch finder's fee?

And lo and behold, the 'eager' Robbie Johnson promptly sold his share of the watch for 15,000 pounds...the exactly figure that was confiscated by the police during the drug bust that sent him to prison.

Robbie was not the only person arrested in that bust. One of his cohorts was re-arrested several years later for running the biggest drug 'factory' in Liverpool history--not just cannabis resin, but cocaine and ecstasy, etc. It landed him an 11-year sentence of hard time.

The need to quickly raise 15,000 to prevent one's head from being beat in is commonly known as motive. There was more going on than meets the eye, and always has been.

And by the way, I dispute that Albert Johnson refused to sell the watch. He did try to sell it, and I think we haven't been told the whole story. Robert E. Davis wasn't the only person interested in the watch. There was a bloke in Spain called Stanley Dangar who--according to Shirley Harrison who met him and stayed with him--was the real person who had offered the $40,000. Davis counter-offered even more. So was Albert Johnson really hesitant to sell as the Hartleys and Mitchells want us to believe, or was he in a bidding war?

Albert finally agreed to sell for a huge chunk of money, and lo and behold Robbie is now dead, but two 'menacing' men show up at the proposed transfer of cash and Davis flees back to Texas.

Like I say, there is far more here than meets the eye, and I think Albert was just the dupe caught in the middle. If you think his miraculous discovery of the scratches at Liverpool Polytechnic was what really happened, then you'll think I'm wrong. But to me, it always came off as a staged event--a way for Albert to make someone other than Robbie the discoverer of the scratches and maybe to test his own doubts through his coworkers.

We are told that Robbie tragically died while on 'vacation' in Spain, which could be true. But Spain is where the other collector--Stanley Danger lived. Maybe this is a coincidence, or maybe it was both a vacation and a way to try to finagle Danger into going ahead with a higher offer and a sale.

And RJ's new year resolution is evidently to write the screenplay for one of those crime dramas that could not be any more 'loosely' based on a true story if Mike Barrett himself had got together with Stanley 'Dangerman' and dreamed it all up.

Staggering.

Anyone fancy casting this one?

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

Hear hear!

I sometimes think the insane implausibility of the 'double event' of March 9, 1992 if it was all linked by no more than mere random chance and coincidence is not fully comprehended. Let me take this opportunity to highlight it once again.

March 9, 1992: Event A
A team of electricians work on the floorboards of the 1889 residence of James Maybrick, a respectable Liverpool cotton merchant.

March 9, 1992: Event B
Later that day, a man calling himself Mike Williams rings Rupert Crew Ltd., a London-based literary agent, saying he thinks he may have the diary of Jack the Ripper. It subsequently turns out that that 'diary' is a Victorian (or Edwardian) scrapbook purportedly written by James Maybrick, a respectable Liverpool cotton merchant.

Now, let's transport ourselves back to March 9, 1992
Is it possible that one or more of the team of electricians working on the floorboards of Battlecrease House that day knew 'Mike Williams'? Well, I guess we don't know because it's still March 9, 1992.
But it does make us ask our next question, which is: Do we know where in the entire globe Mike Williams was ringing from? The answer to that is that we don't know that either.

Later that evening
So, it's March 9, 1992, and we're tucking ourselves into our beds, and we're wondering, "Is it just sheer, random fate which has caused those two events to occur on the same day but in the correct order for us to be suspicious that they may be linked?". Well, we just don't know but we are aware that this would be a staggering coincidence if it was mere chance alone. But is there any information that would help us to know? Of course, there must be! So we resolve that from the following day we will dig deeper to see if we can understand the situation better.

The next day and following days
We track down 'Mike Williams'. It's surprisingly easy because we live in the Anfield district of Liverpool and - amazingly enough - the man who could have lived anywhere in the entire world (220+ countries) or anywhere in the UK (four countries), or anywhere in England (roughly 30+ counties in 1992) or even anywhere in Merseyside (countless districts) somewhat conveniently lives in the Anfield district of Liverpool, in 12 Goldie Street which is just eight short miles away from Battlecrease House. Our alarm bells start to ring. His name, it transpires is Michael Barrett. It appears that he had something to hide when he made his call under the name 'Williams' so our alarm bells are now ringing rather loud. Barrett is a house-husband who has previously had a number of jobs, but once they dried up due to an ongoing medical condition, he had harboured dreams of being a professional writer but only made a pittance during the late 1980s when he managed to place sixteen celebrity interviews in minor magazines, and the odd puzzle in children's periodicals. Nevertheless, he is also a bit of a blowhard so it is not difficult to imagine that he might have created a local reputation for himself as a 'connected' man in the literary world. Perhaps, we wonder, his egotistical posturing (if he did) marked him out as someone who could 'do something with' a mooted 'diary' of Jack the Ripper?

But there's no link
But there's no link that we can establish. Anfield is clearly not Argentina, but those eight miles from Battlecrease House to 12 Goldie Street are just too much to conceive of an association between the two. At best, we establish that a team of electricians were working in Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992, but we can't make a clear link between the two.

Later
Later, we find out that Eddie Lyons was a member of the electrician team and that he lived with his girlfriend at her house in Fountains Road in Liverpool which is just twenty minutes' walk from Goldie Street. We dig a little deeper and we discover that Lyons drinks in The Saddle Inn, a popular pub in Fountains Road. No great surprise there. But then we remember that Michael Barrett said that he got the 'diary' from a guy who he had met in The Saddle Inn and with whom he had struck up a strong friendship. Was Barrett therefore a regular in the same pub as Lyons? It turns out he very much was - Barrett popped in for 'a' pint most days on his way to collect his daughter from school. This recollection stuns us. This is a coincidence too many, surely? The answer seems to be no because Lyons denies all knowledge of any Jack the Ripper 'diary' and the firm's timesheets show that he wasn't a charged worker in Battlecrease on March 9, 1992. He wasn't there. It seems all too clear, and the coincidence all too well confirmed.

So we leave it for a while
So we leave it for a while, contenting ourselves that here we had two coincidences which were worthy of the title 'double event' but apparently entirely coincidental.

But much, much later
But much, much later Eddie Lyons admits that he was an uncharged hand at Battlecrease House on the morning of March 9, 1992. He was there, on the very day the floorboards were lifted and on the day Michael Barrett spoke for the first time about his belief that he had in his possession the 'dairy' of Jack the Ripper'.

So what do we then think?
So what do we then think?

So what would you think, if you were that time-travelling amateur detective?

Tom

Well it's obvious, Tom, ain't it?

We are reliably [??] informed that Mike didn't know 'Battlecrease' Eddie from a bar of soap. He was busy interesting a London literary agent in a Battlecrease 'dairy' he had yet to create, based on a fictional story written in all innocence by his rather dim wife, who only caught on to his funny little game later, but then did nothing when Doreen failed to "send Mike packing". A quiet word in Doreen's shell-like at that point would have saved Anne years of worry and distress, but no. Anne's IQ was evidently below 70, so she was completely stuck for a way to extricate herself and her dodgy other half from the situation and just had to let it get totally out of hand.

Fast forward a year, and Albert finds himself in an uncannily similar spot, thanks this time to a dodgy younger brother, who has just read the barest details about a Maybrick diary that is yet to be published, and has cheekily fashioned a companion piece for it from Albert's innocently acquired watch while his back was turned.

If the theories about these people look much the same, except that in one case the dodgy and unwitting characters were married, while in the other they were brothers, there's no coincidence to see here - just a creative theorist in common.

It seems that mighty oaks of imaginative thinking can come from acorns that show no imagination at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

It would seem problematic, timewise [ha ha], for Kruger to have received Albert's watch from the Murphys as early as 9th March 1992 and stamped his initial and the date in it. So if the 9/3 doesn't refer to that magical date, or any date at all, the H or K may not refer to a repairer's initial either.

All we can safely say is that if Albert's watch was serviced by Dundas, he recalled nothing useful about it a year later, going on to describe some other watch, which may or may not have come from the Murphys at some point. That should not be difficult for anyone to process, since human error regarding details and especially dates is the norm, while perfect recall is anything but. With no paper trail or similar documentary evidence to help, few of us would be able to give an accurate and consistent account of some insignificant event in our daily lives from even a few months ago. No blame should be attached to Dundas or the Murphys, if they merely forgot a detail here or a date there, but caution is essential when anyone claims to be certain about something they couldn't reasonably be certain about.

Caz,

if the 9/3 is March 9 (1992) v Sept 1903, doesn’t it make a big difference for the “Old Hoax” Theory?

One would give a Hoaxer 50 or 60 years plus to create it while the other suggests no service for 103 years, giving a Hoaxer only 6 months to create the diary and the watch before being hidden.

Would you still go with Hoax with the 6 months scenario considering all the things that would have to go into it?

[Caroline Brown]

We simply don't know how to interpret the H [or K] 9/3, beyond the established fact that the disputed markings were made first.

The Johnson hoax theory dictates that every mark, scratch and engraving on that surface - including 9/3 - made its appearance between late April and early June 1993, despite the Murphys claim to have used jeweller's rouge on visible scratch marks in 1992.

Any other theory leaves us to speculate that if the mark does represent a service or repair prior to Albert's purchase, the numbers may indicate a date. But equally they may simply reflect the repairer's own system, whatever that was. Could be anything really, including the third repair in September [any September], or the ninth repair in March [any March].

All we can really say is that if the 9/3 was there when Albert bought the watch, then so was the Maybrick signature, effectively ruling out the diary as a Barrett hoax. That is why it's so crucial for Barrett hoax believers to keep the Johnsons in the frame, whatever it takes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Markus Aurelius Franzoi]

The Johnson hoax theory dictates that every mark, scratch and engraving on that surface - including 9/3 - made its appearance between late April and early June 1993, despite the Murphys claim to have used jeweller's rouge on visible scratch marks in 1992....effectively ruling out the diary as a Barrett hoax. That is why it's so crucial for Barrett hoax believers to keep the Johnsons in the frame, whatever it takes.

Do you ever wonder why the Barrett/Johnson believers keep coming back to debate you, Caz?

Has it never occurred them that they lose the argument because you have the correct premise which is that they have the wrong one? Or do they think they are right but they are just losing a battle of wits--they just haven't outwitted you (yet)?

Is that why they keep coming back with the same premise and a new argument or an old one instead of coming up with a new premise? Looking at it that way, I'd take it as a compliment.

[Caroline Brown]

I think I see what you mean, Markus. I often feel like I'm watching flies flinging themselves at the same window pane, expecting the glass not to be there next time. They've picked their window into the truth and that's them done. No other windows need to be tested. They just need frequent breaks to give their sore heads a rest, before returning to the same window and having another bash.

But every Barrett/Johnson believer is different, with varying levels of understanding of all the issues. There are those who don't know or care about any evidence-based obstacles to the 'truth' they are fed by others. To them, the truth is not as important as being members of the same club. The brighter minds must recognise when things are not adding up, so at least they try harder to think their way round the obstacles, in order to arrive at the same popular conclusion.

And when a solid obstacle won't budge with the power of thought, the messenger who keeps pointing to it will be blamed for not believing enough.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

On the subject of getting round obstacles to the Johnson hoax theory, in order to keep the Barrett hoax theory alive, I was browsing through my timeline recently and came across an interesting entry, which shows that even the most fervent believer will occasionally have acknowledged - at least in private - potential flaws in their thinking and the need for more evidential support.

Back in March 1998, Peter Birchwood sent an email to Stanley Dangar, referring to their mutual opinion that there were similarities between the diary handwriting and Gerard Kane's, who had witnessed Tony Devereux's will. Birchwood thought it 'more likely than not that Kane wrote it' [implying that he didn't think Anne Barrett did it, despite Mike's affidavit], but he acknowledged the need to 'examine the relationships between these people to see if it’s likely that they could have conspired to fake this'. Could it be shown that Barrett knew Kane? [No, there has never been any such indication.] Birchwood observed that 'we have to show a prior interest by one of the triumvirate [MB, GK, TD] in the Maybrick/Ripper crimes’, and that 'Barrett would seem to have been the likely one – trouble is we really know very little about Devereux and Kane...'.

One thing made Birchwood think they may not have been on the right track: why would Mike link Tony Devereux with the diary, living or dead, if he was part of the plot? It was a totally reasonable question, despite what had been gathered about Mike's mercurial character. Furthermore, Mike's insistence that he got the diary from Tony looked to Birchwood 'more like a plan to distance the provenance to someone who was dead and couldn't answer questions'. If Mike knew any investigation into Tony would be inconclusive because he had no part in the conspiracy, he might have felt safe to use him as the source for the diary. Maybe when it was being marketed, Tony was the only acquaintance Mike had who had died at precisely the right time.

This part of Birchwood's thinking back in 1998 would have come far too close for comfort to 21st century Battlecrease theory - if only he knew it. Transferring the diary from some unidentified person who had it in March 1992 and was very much alive, to an acquaintance of Mike's from 1991, who died knowing nothing, would have seemed the more logical move to Birchwood. Why mention Tony at all if he had been part of the plot, even at the most superficial level? His own death could not have guaranteed the silence of anyone else who might have been in the know. In fact, it would arguably have been riskier if Tony only knew that Mike had developed a particular interest in the Maybrick story, and had told his daughters about this in all innocence, knowing nothing about any plan to fake a diary. Either way, making Tony the provenance, and his surviving family the obvious and immediate focus of enquiries [which is precisely what happened], would have been asking for trouble, and this rightly gave Birchwood pause for thought, and should do so even more with us today.

This Mister X, who had it before Mike, would have been the one to track down and question about his part in the diary 'plot', but Birchwood's priority would still have been to check the man's handwriting. If there was no match the hunt would have been on for another conspirator, rather than another explanation for the diary's existence.

Love,

Caz
X