|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 819
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 7:41 am: |       |
Hi Chris,
What do you not understand about my use of ‘indication’, ‘His opinion’ and ‘this indicated’?
Isn’t that enough qualification for you?
One more time, how do you know that the information given about when the watch was polished was ‘incorrect’? And why do you keep implying that Wild based (that word again) his opinion (that word again) on his understanding of this one bit of information that he was given, and that he might have come to an entirely different conclusion from his qualified ‘several tens of years old’, had he not been told anything at all? I just don’t get it.
And you are the one who keeps asking me to clarify stuff, when I have already said the reports will be published if and when we get permission. I also explained quite clearly that I don’t fully understand the reports myself and that I could be totally wrong.
How do you want your ‘charm’? With blood on it? I’m doing my best here. 
I was also the person who posted the actual diameter of Albert’s pocket watch – 4.5 cm – which surprised Paul and made him reassess his own opinion (that he formed from the photo of Albert holding it) that it was a smaller man’s dress watch.
It doesn’t matter to me who provides information, even less who gets the credit for it. But it’s a wee bit frustrating when you heavily criticise me for everything you do read (and stuff you only think you read), yet miss other basic facts I provide, or attribute them elsewhere.
And I’m sorry, but your last paragraph leaves me utterly baffled. But I will sleep on it.
Why so serious?
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Caroline Morris
You're not making things any clearer by muddling together Wild's final several tens of years old conclusion with the one you quoted previously certainly older than ten years.
If you'll just read carefully what I've posted, you'll see that the latter is clearly based on the information he'd been given about when the watch was polished.
That's why I was so surprised to hear you quoting that back at me, a couple of days after you said it didn't matter what he was told about when the watch was cleaned, because it didn't influence his conclusions!
As for the final conclusion (several tens of years old), I don't know what it was based on, though I have asked. From the way it's presented in Harrison's book, it seems that it comes from the brass slivers, and is nothing at all to do with polishing.
One more time, how do you know that the information given about when the watch was polished was ‘incorrect’?
Actually I have already explained why I think this is implausible, and why it is important for Wild's argument.
To repeat the comment, Wild's argument, based on the silver enrichment, as far as I can understand it from the excerpts that have been given, is an argument to show that the scratches were already present when the watch was last cleaned - 6-10 years previously, as he was told.
Even if you're going to speculate that there really was a previous cleaning, if the watch had been last cleaned by Murphy in 1992, it seems to me that this conclusion of Wild's goes out of the window. And of course, if the scratches were faked and artificially aged even later, it goes even further out of the window!
And you are the one who keeps asking me to clarify stuff, when I have already said the reports will be published if and when we get permission.
Well, that's good, and I agree it would be better
to hold off from detailed discussion until that happens.
But the reason I asked you for clarification was because you referred to Wild's opinion was that the ripper markings were made before all the polishing marks, which I hadn't seen elsewhere. Evidently it was worth clarifying, as it turns out not to be the case.
I also explained quite clearly that I don’t fully understand the reports myself and that I could be totally wrong.
Fair enough. But that being so, why not tone down the anguished remarks about how slow others are in understanding, and how they are making you repeat yourself?
I was also the person who posted the actual diameter of Albert’s pocket watch – 4.5 cm – which surprised Paul and made him reassess his own opinion (that he formed from the photo of Albert holding it) that it was a smaller man’s dress watch.
Thank you - that explains why I hadn't been able to find it, if it was a comment on size which Paul then commented on in relation to gender.
It doesn’t matter to me who provides information, even less who gets the credit for it. But it’s a wee bit frustrating when you heavily criticise me for everything you do read (and stuff you only think you read), yet miss other basic facts I provide, or attribute them elsewhere.
As we're meant to be ultra-courteous these days, maybe we could do a deal. You could cut out the barrage of snide remarks about what I've missed, what I've only thought I've read, what basic facts I've misattributed, how boring it is waiting for the penny to drop, how tedious it is having to repeat yourself, and so on?
And I could really try to pull my socks up and try harder next time.
Why so serious?
Ha ha ha!
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 8:49 am: | |
Hi Paul,
Damn it!
But what have Feldman theories got to do with it?
James did die in George's arms. George almost certainly did drown himself five years later, after suffering insomnia, and a watch was found under his pillow on February 10, 1893.
Somebody must have taken possession of this watch, whether it had ever been Maybrick's or not. And it could have been repaired on March 9, 1893, September 1893, September 1903, or pawned at any time, and had JO engraved on it by a new owner.
Who says this could never have happened?
The markings were put in Albert's watch for a reason, as was the H 9 3. If the latter is a legitimate old mark, how do we explain the former? I was never one of those who thought Maybrick had to be Jack the Ripper if the marks were made decades ago. But something like this makes you think again, doesn't it?
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Caz---"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."
Here we reach ground zero. For can you see why this is the hurdle that I can't jump over? Mr. Dundas (who felt strongly enough to sign a sworn affidavit) and Mr. Murphy (who also admitted to polishing the "secret" back of the watch), noticed nothing ----though they were looking directly at it--- yet the "Ripper marks" were discovered accidently by Albert's workmates when a beam of sunshine through a window hit at just the correct angle to illuminate a part of the watch that normally wouldn't be inspected... It's very hard to accept. And this accidental discovery had to have happened very soon after April 21-22, 1993 -- when the “Liverpool Daily Post” ran two articles on Maybrick Diary but before June 4th when Robert Smith received his call from Albert Johnson.
No one seems to be interested in the number '20789'. Let me throw it out once again. Is this a date? If so, the date would most likely be 20-7-89. Or, in other words 20, July, 1889. If this is accurate, by a remarkabe stroke of luck, the watch in question was being serviced ten days or so before Maybrick's will went to probate. In otherwords, the watch was off in some unknown watch shop at them moment when Maybrick's effects were still in the possession of George Smith and George Davidson---and at a time when the name "Maybrick" would have been instantly recognizable to any horologist in the UK. RP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 821
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
You can’t be serious, can you?
If you yourself are now separating Wild’s qualified final several tens of years old conclusion from his qualified earlier certainly older than ten years observation, then you are simply agreeing with me that the final conclusion was based on other factors besides the information he was given, incorrect or not, about when the watch received one or more of its polishings.
Which was my original point.
In other words, the polishing information could only have influenced Wild to conclude the markings were made at some point before that polishing. It could not by itself have influenced him to conclude they were made a single day more than ten years previously.
Whichever way you look at it, Wild finally concluded that ‘it would appear’ that the ripper ‘engraving’ was ‘not done recently’, so he was not so influenced by any information given to him that he put it any stronger than that, on the basis of that information. If he had swallowed the information whole, he might have concluded that the markings ‘could not have been made in the last six to ten years’. He didn’t.
And whatever Dr. Turgoose was told, he also conceded that they could have been produced ‘recently’ under certain conditions, so he could not have been unduly influenced by any tall tales either.
You still don’t seem to understand what I’m saying about this ‘last’ cleaning business. If I’m right, and all the observed polishing and other scratch marks were found to be on top of the ripper marks, then the ripper marks predate the earliest observable polishing session, whether this was in 1992, 1988, 1984 or earlier.
In short, if it was last polished in 1992, the ripper marks were made at least as long ago as that, so Wild’s conclusions don’t go out of the window at all.
What is it about Wild’s own statement that is so confusing here?
…would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished.
Can I assume you are not disputing that the watch was polished at some point after the marks were made, at least once, either by a hoaxer in 1993 or the Murphys in 1992? Assuming that the latest polishing marks were observable, can we at least assume that marks left by any earlier polishing sessions in recent years would also have been observable (whether it could have been one session in 1992, one session six to ten years before Wild got involved, or a combination of two or more sessions)?
If so, I must be missing something pretty fundamental here, because I still can’t see why it is not the case that Wild’s words amount to an opinion that the ripper markings were made before any recent polishing session, whenever it (or they) occurred.
Unless you want to claim that the watch was only polished by a hoaxer after July 1992, which is possible but may not be all that likely, I really don’t know what you are getting at.
Forgive me, but I was assuming that you would have been reading all the posts and following the whole discussion, and that you had nevertheless missed my information about the size of the watch. Obviously that was not the case, as you now explain why you couldn’t find it, when checking back over earlier posts. Sincere apologies for assuming too much.
And also sincere apologies if I upset you with any of my observations, which, as I keep saying, could be wrong.
Don’t mind me, I’m just a silly woman who finds this subject way too fascinating for her own good sometimes.
Have a good weekend.
Love,
Caz
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 12:40 pm: | |
Caroline Morris
I give up. Someone else will have to try to explain it to you.
Chris
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 822
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
Well, if the H 9 3 was there in 1992, when Dundas claims to have seen repair marks (and there's only one obvious repair mark on the 'secret' surface he so famously looked at but couldn't see any of the ripper markings), then why should a previous repairer have seen or tried to interpret the marks on this surface, had they been there when he added his 20 7 89 to - where did you say this was?
Paul has observed that there would not necessarily have been any requirement for a repairer to inspect this surface closely, and didn't he also believe that the scratches would have been almost as faint then as they are now?
As I said before, I couldn't see the marks in Bournemouth, under a magnifying glass, even though I knew exactly what I was looking for and where. But others were able to make them out in exactly the right light. So who knows?
Either the H 9 3 was there in 1992, or a hoaxer thought it would be a very good idea to add another string to his bow. Perhaps that's why Albert and Robbie kept going back to the Murphys. Did they suddenly realise that they could be caught out by their own subtlety, if the history of the watch was known and might not allow for any such mark? What did they mean to imply by H 9 3?
How would you explain its presence, whenever it was made?
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
Caz--Hi. Here's the short answer. You write, & Paul agrees, that "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.”
I'm at a disadvantage since I haven't seen the watch first-hand, but this seems like an absurdity to me. Yes, I think the idea is probably true, but by the same token, if he was worried about appearances, why then would our unknown repairer scratch his personal mark "H 9 3" over the top of "I am Jack" which must have been apparent under the gaze of his loupes? I mean, judging from the photo, the "Ripper" scratches appear to be every bit as deep and as clear as the '1275'. Common-sense would suggest that these barbaric scawls are over the top of the repair marks. Ergo, unless I can examine the watch myself, I have to conclude that Turgoose is mistaken, and the "horizontal line" that is "apparently" under the mark "H 9 3" is actually over the top of it, and the Ripper marks date from after 9/3. If not, then, yes, I agree that it's an enigma. RP
The '20789' is on the inside of the inner rim. See Harrison (2nd edition, Pocket books) p. 260.
PS. I'm not sure the possibility that the "J.O." was engraved after 1889 is a very satisfying one. The watch was 42 years old at that point. Surely in the general run of things, personal engravings are made shortly after purchase? And Maybrick's father William was, after all, a professional engraver... |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 9:13 am: | |
Hi Caz.
Yes it does make you think.!!! I know I promised to keep the rhetoric and irony to a minimum, but it doesn’t apply to a teeny little bit of light hearted badinage at the end of our posts I hope….?
I like it. Isn’t it amazing how well things just fall into place some times? You can’t change history, and the coincidences are really adding up now.
See you all next week,
Regards etc.
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 7:00 am: | |
Actually I will come back to this briefly, because I've been pondering what Wild said, and am finding it hard to see what his logical basis was for any conclusion at all about the relative ages of the scratches and any of the possible polishings.
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.
How does this work?
Wild seems to be combining these two assumptions/observations:
(1) Polishing would have modified the original surface but not that of the scratches, and
(2) The surface of the scratches is different from the original surface.
How is it possible to reach any conclusion at all about the order of the scratching and polishing events from these two data?
If we accept Wild's statement that polishing doesn't affect the surface of the scratches:
(1) If the scratches came before the polishing, we would have pristine scratches and polished surface.
(2) If the polishing came first, we would have polished surface and - pristine scratches!
How can any sense be made of this?
(That's without trying to make sense of the earlier draft, which suggests that no difference had been observed between the surfaces, although it's difficult to make sense of as it stands.)
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 235
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Hi,
I was just re-reading through the Diary this weekend, and that reminded me that the Diarist claims a victim by strangulation only in Manchester. Admittedly, the diarist also claims this "gave him no pleasure" and he just "left her for dead".
The "watch", which also claims to be Maybrick's, has the initials of the 5 canonical victims, with no indication of this mystery first victim.
The lack of evidence of this diary reported first murder could, of course, indicate that she wasn't actually dead despite being "left for dead" (error on the killer's part). But even so, how would the killer know of his mistake unless the attack was reported in the papers as a failure? Since nothing has been found to support this first attack, we either assume the evidence is not yet found, or the attack never occurred, or the attack was never reported (so there is no evidence to be found). With the latter, remember, the diarist doesn't know he failed either.
Moreover, the diarist never claims frustration over the failure, no fear of capture, etc. Therefore, it does appear the diarist believes he succeeded.
Anyway, there is no reason to suspect that the diarist knows the names of the canonical 5 victims until they are reported in the papers. So the same would hold for the Manchester victim.
My wonder is, do people consider it a "problem" for the watch that there is no indication of this first Manchester victim? The lack of initials could be he doesn't know them. But wouldn't something like "Man", or "MC", (something for Manchester), or +1, or ??, etc. something to indicate one more, be sort of expected?
What arguments could be made to explain the lack of this diary victim being indicated on the watch, without invoking "forgery". I want to exclude forgery from this simply because that makes such an easy to follow conclusion (the watch forger doesn't know the contents of the diary, therefore is unaware of the Manchester victim being claimed in the diary).
If, in the end, the explanations for the lack of this victim are implausible, we may then have to accept that the forgery explanation is the most plausible.
One suggested explanation might be that since:
the diarist claims there was no pleasure in this killing, and so he does not include it in his watch list.
A second is that since the diarist also claims that Whitechappel will be the area he conducts his mission in, well, the Manchester victim is no longer considered part of the mission.
I'm curious what other explanations have been offered to explain the lack of this "first" victim.
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
Hi RJ,
What has James’ father having been a professional engraver got to do with anything?
You would argue that James never had Albert’s watch in his possession anyway. But if, for argument’s sake, he did, we still would have no idea when, how or why he acquired it, who else knew he had it, or what happened to it when he died.
Incidentally, my own Victorian pendant watch has a dear little cartouche with a tiny space that my great grandmother or grandmother could have filled at any time by having their initials engraved there.
It's a personal decision whether to add to the sentimental value in this way, if it is intended to become a family heirloom, or to appeal to future buyers, in the event of having to sell, who may prefer such an item not to be personalised - unless of course by a famous celebrity.
Ok, so maybe Turgoose was mistaken about the H 9 3 being made over the ‘I am Jack’, but I wouldn’t pin all your hopes on that if I were you. Apparent absurdities, and what common sense would otherwise suggest, don’t apply if Turgoose was not mistaken, and if the H 9 3 was already there when Dundas did his job in 1992.
I’m just the messenger here. Shoot me if you like, before you know whether the message is wrong, or whether I could have garbled it in the transmitting, but it won’t make 'common sense' explanations come any thicker or faster. Only those with the most open of closed minds on this topic will readily swallow the explanation that a hoaxer must have thought of putting the H 9 3 on top as his final flourish.
Out of interest, I wonder if anyone else is assuming Turgoose got it wrong, or that he is likely to have made a mistake about the ‘J’ of ‘Jack’ being made earlier than the H 9 3. John Hacker? Paul Stephen? Anyone?
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 825
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Good to see new blood on this thread!
Forgery explanations are doomed from the outset to sound more ‘plausible’. We have a written Jack the Ripper confession with a lousy history of different provenances claimed for it by the various players – each story implausible in its own way, and/or unsupported. One day I’m hoping its true provenance will finally make it through the Liverpool scallywag grapevine, along with enough evidence to sound plausible to all, no matter what they believe right now.
As for the watch, Turgoose mentions ‘tick’ marks in addition to the other markings, but I have no idea how many he observed, where these are on the scratched surface and therefore what they might mean.
The most ‘plausible’ modern hoax theory for the watch is that it was scratched in 1993 by a bandwagon hoaxer who made educated guesses regarding the character that would emerge from the pages of the diary, from what kind of watch he might have used for his ‘notches in the bedpost’ trophy, to which victims actually featured. It would have been hard to explain if this hoaxer had included the initials of a victim the diarist excluded from his tally, or even denied killing. But excluding initials would never be an insurmountable problem, because the ripper himself would not have had the restrictions of a hoaxer wanting to make his hoax look ‘right’.
The ripper could have excluded initials for any number of personal reasons, from not knowing the name of a victim, or not having a newspaper report to confirm a ‘kill’, to your own plausible explanations that it might depend on the level of satisfaction he got, or whether the first victim was regarded only as a try-out, and therefore not part of his main campaign to ‘bag’ Whitechapel whores.
We restrict our own thinking if we only consider hoaxers at work, and then decide how well they did, based on what we think hoaxers should have got ‘right’ but didn’t. The ripper himself had no such restrictions, in anything he may have done relating to his crimes. He could write in any damned style he pleased, if he wanted to write down his fantasies, and his thoughts on acting some of them out.
Living a double life, having to keep his murderous side and related fantasies to himself, would have made him no less prone than anyone else to human error: having the odd memory lapse, or getting details muddled in his mind; confusing what he actually did with what he only thought he did, or quite fancied doing and so on. I don’t know why some people expect so much more of their ripper. A real killer does not strive to make his doings look ‘right’ to anyone, let alone the most hardened sceptics a hundred years down the line. But a hoaxer in late 20th century Liverpool pretending to be arguably the most famous unidentified serial killer of all time would presumably be hoping his work would appear convincing enough not to fall at the first hurdle when starting on his own campaign.
I think it's fast becoming a joke that the alleged watch and diary hoaxers put little or no thought and effort into the creation of either artefact - and cared even less whether they would be laughed, or cursed, into oblivion.
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
All,
I've been busy over the past weekend, and there's been a lot of posts, so I'd just like to make a few points that occur to me regarding the discussion of late.
1) We still do not know the "H 9/3" is a repair mark. It doesn't match any format of any repair mark I have seen which will typically indicate a full date. I've seen it suggested that the "9/3" stands for 1893, and Sept of 1903. If we're going to assume that the repairer found the decade and century irrelevant than it might as well stand for 1913, 1923, or even 1993. And without an actual day of the month, the supposed repairer would need to look through a months worth of records to identify the watch if he needed to. It seems very thin to me as yet. I will not dismiss the possibility of it being a repair mark out of hand, but we need to know who made it and what it actually means before it can be used in support of the watches age.
2) Again, it's still possible that a hoaxer made it for whatever reason. The fact that it crosses the Jack scratch still seems very suspicious to me, and the argument that the repairer might have wanted to keep it by the other mark "1275" doesn't hold any water at all, as there is ample room BELOW that mark to have inscribed the "H 9/3". And below would be the natural place for an English writer to put it in any case.
3) The repair mark Dundas saw could be the one on the inside rim. This should be clarified if possible.
4) I do find the fact that the initials J.O. are on the watch to be very odd considering that Maybrick's father was an engraver. That's a bit of family history I had forgotten.
Chris,
I would take any of the silver enrichment comments made by Wild with an big grain of salt. The "Could" in his report, clearly indicates speculation rather than opinion. However, there was clearly polishing after the scratches were made as demonstrated by Turgooses examination. We just don't know how long after the scratches were made that the polishing occurred.
Jeff,
The lack of Manchester initials has always bothered me. But if we're to take the diary at face value, he didn't take the name of Jack until the Dear Boss letter, so it seems likely that the watch would have been made after that point and retro fitted with the victims initials.
Caz,
I doubt that Turgoose was wrong regarding the order the scratches were laid down, however I'm not sure I would attach the same significance to that than you are.
"You still don’t seem to understand what I’m saying about this ‘last’ cleaning business. If I’m right, and all the observed polishing and other scratch marks were found to be on top of the ripper marks, then the ripper marks predate the earliest observable polishing session, whether this was in 1992, 1988, 1984 or earlier."
I think you're correct here, but as we don't know when the watch was last polished this doesn't tell us anything at all about the age of the scratches. The watch could have been polished the morning it was taken to Wild's for testing for all we know.
"and there's only one obvious repair mark on the 'secret' surface he so famously looked at but couldn't see any of the ripper markings"
I think it's a bit premature to conclude that the "H 9/3" is an obvious repair mark. Evidence is needed to support that conclusion before it should be accepted as fact. If you want to proceed under the working hypothesis that it's a repair mark, fine, but it's not been proven as of yet. It could still be some cute Ripper reference we just don't get yet.
More research is needed into repair marks. If we could identify the repairer (if he exists), and find a corroborating entry in their paperwork we'd be well on our way towards an actual provenance for the watch which would strengthen the case for authenticity immeasurably. Right now we have a mark on top of another mark which doesn't really prove much of anything.
I would agree that it looks like *if* it's a hoax that they did in fact put a bit of thought into it. Which is what I've always said. But I don't think that it would have taken a genius. Someone with average intelligence and a bit of knowledge of antiquities could have easily done it. Putting a mark on top of the other marks hardly takes a genius, and the physical methodology required would not be at all difficult.
Regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
John Hacker wrote:
I would take any of the silver enrichment comments made by Wild with an big grain of salt. The "Could" in his report, clearly indicates speculation rather than opinion. However, there was clearly polishing after the scratches were made as demonstrated by Turgooses examination. We just don't know how long after the scratches were made that the polishing occurred.
I agree. I was really just trying to clarify, for the sake of accuracy, whether it was true that Wild's "opinion was that the ripper markings were made before all the polishing marks".
I still suspect that if they show anything, the silver enrichment measurements show that the scratches were made before the watch was last polished. But it's not clear that they do show anything.
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
Chris,
"I still suspect that if they show anything, the silver enrichment measurements show that the scratches were made before the watch was last polished."
I think you're absolutely right there. I don't think anything could be said about "all the polishing marks" because each polishing removes a portion of the surface. The earliest visible polishing marks would be the LAST ones made.
"But it's not clear that they do show anything."
I tend to agree, but I guess we'll need to wait for the release of the reports before we know anything for sure.
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Hi Chris, John, All,
I understood that Wild was suggesting that the surface of the gold at the base of the ripper markings did not appear to have been affected by polishing to the same extent as the rest of the ‘secret’ surface. In other words, any determined polishing, before or after the marks were made, would have removed some of the top layers from the entire original gold surface. However, polishing the surface over the ripper markings would still remove outer layers of gold from most of the surface, but the now-inaccessible parts at the base of each marking would be more like the original unpolished surface with all its layers intact.
The greater wearing away that Wild apparently detected when examining the overall surface, compared with that at the base of the ripper scratches, was apparently consistent with polishing after the scratches were in place. Perhaps he was also able to determine, from his examination of the gold at the base of the scratches, that this was relatively intact, and consistent with how the original unpolished surface would have appeared - I don’t know.
Turgoose reported that ‘it is clear’ all the ‘engravings’ predate all the examined superficial scratches. Whether either of them would have found clear evidence of polishings beneath the engravings, had there been any to find, remains unclear to me at this point.
I’m quite happy to consider that the H 9 3 may not be a genuine old repair mark, or even a faked repair mark by our resourceful hoaxer. It would be helpful (and I wish I’d taken more time looking at the watch in Bournemouth) to see just how relatively visible these different markings are, either to the naked eye or under various degrees of magnification. Since I couldn’t see any of the marks obviously connected to the ripper and Maybrick, even under a magnifying glass held by Val Johnson (while others could), the photos clearly showing the marks on the surface we have been discussing can’t help us decide if the 1275 and the H 9 3 could in fact be sharper and much more instantly noticeable than the others.
If the H 9 3 is clear enough for all to see, it could have been damning for Albert or Robbie to have put it there in 1993, for any reason, and then taken it back to the Murphys, with the risk that they could have taken one look and said, “Where did that mark come from? We know for a fact it wasn’t there when we sold you the watch".
Love,
Caz
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 237
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
The JO is interesting, but I'm assuming that the JO is not our Manchester victim from the fact nobody has suggested it. I did a look for the evidence that the JO is more recent than the other initials, but couldn't find it. Perhaps I just didn't go back far enough?
Anyway, if we're sure JO is more recent, we can be pretty sure the Manchester victim is not included.
Given that the canonical 5 only span a few months, it's always possible that "Jack" engraves the initials as the names come out in the papers, and then adds the I am Jack after the "Dear Boss" letter.
Anyway, it's a bit odd that the Diarist toys with the idea of destroying the diary because it might incriminate him, and he does this a couple times. But, during these concerns, he doesn't ever indicate there's a watch that could do the same. The diarist doesn't even hint at the notion there might be a 2nd "record" of his work.
Has this been considered a problem?
As you can probably guess, what I'm interested in at the moment is to see if there are problems in connecting the watch to the tale told by the diarist. We're not likely to be able to sever the connection completely (since the diarist claims the 5 victims listed in the watch, there's no obvious lie), and if they are by one in the same hand, then we won't be able to cast much reasonable doubt.
In contrast, if they are not by the same hand, then one or the other or both is a forgery. Given the order of appearance, the watch gets discounted first.
Anyway, we have the lack of one victim being claimed, but there are explanations for that.
Is the fact that the diarist implies that the diary is the only record of his guilt a problem? (The implication comes from the fact he only ever talks about destroying the diary because it could convict him, and does not mention the watch).
- Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Jeff Hamm wrote:
The JO is interesting, but I'm assuming that the JO is not our Manchester victim from the fact nobody has suggested it. I did a look for the evidence that the JO is more recent than the other initials, but couldn't find it. Perhaps I just didn't go back far enough?
Unless I've misunderstood badly, the JO is properly engraved on the outside of the case, whereas the "Ripper scratches" are on the inside. I think everyone is agreed that JO must represent one of the watch's owners.
Talking of problems with the initials, one of the things discussed on the old boards is that the initials "CE" seem in Harrison's photo to be "CB". It does look clearly like it to me; can anyone comment?
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 238
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 8:32 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Thanks for that (re: position of the JO initials). I had a quick look to see if I could find such details concnerning them, but couldn't find them. Admittedly, I had didn't have much time to search and I'm sure the information is available. Anyway, I was pretty sure that if JO could be the Manchester victim, then my original post would have been corrected by those more well versed in the details of the watch/diary.
- Jeff |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 10:08 am: | |
OK Chris and All
It’s just come to me so I’m typing this before it goes again.
If the case had been polished before any of the maybrick scratches were made, then the silver enrichment on the entire surface, which is caused by aging of the metal alloy in 18 carat gold, would have been removed over the entire surface. If the scratches were made subsequent to that, then they would not have any silver in their base because it had already been removed by polishing.
If, on the other hand, the scratches were made several decades ago, and the watch hadn’t been polished before, so had silver enrichment on the surface, you would expect to find that in the scratches as well. A subsequent polishing would remove the silver from the surface but not from the scratches. In other words, you would not get this phenomenon unless the scratches were of a considerable age.
This would still work even if the watch had been polished before, as long as it was many years ago. The enrichment would form within the scratches due to normal oxidation processes over a considerable period of time anyway, and any subsequent polishing would still only remove the silver from the surface and not the scratch.
Yes that works, and in connection with the wear to the "mounding", would explain why Wild reached the conclusion that he did.
Regards
Paul
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi Caz, everyone.
I did a couple of postings about scratches over the weekend but they haven’t appeared as I type this. I really should get out more! Our Moderator/Editor deserves his weekends free of JTR I think, and hopefully my request for Casebook membership will arrive in the US this week.
No Caz, I don’t think Turgoose was wrong about the H 9/3. I don’t see the point in paying large sums of money to experts, and then disagreeing with their most basic of findings if they aren’t what I expect them to be. Until proven otherwise, I shall continue to accept that as a rather fascinating and astonishing fact.
90% plus of all Victorian watches with cartouches for initials on the back, have not been engraved with anything. It is not an option that seems to have been taken up very much at all. A quick look in an antique shop selling gold and silver items will confirm this. Our hoaxer could have got his hands on a nice blank example at almost any point in history, and yet he saddled himself with a problematical JO.
I spent hours at the weekend researching repair marks and all things to do with Victorian gold watches when I should have been gardening!
Having discovered another example of a watch case made by RS, complete with “scratchings”, contemporary with the Maybrick watch, (No. It doesn’t say “I am Disraeli” or anything like), I think we can now definitely eliminate 1275 from our enquiries.
More later when I have the time.
Regards
Paul
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 8:39 am: | |
Hi Chris
I’m glad this is losing you as well as me!
Wild’s comment to me reads as though the polishing event he mentions is the ONLY time the watch was ever polished. At least to our knowledge.
In general, a polishing with rouge is only intended to remove supeficial scratching, and therefore to brighten the surface. It would not, and has not, to any extent, removed the intentional or deeper scratches from the watch.
Each time rouge is used in this way it will completely obliterate any signs of a previous polishing with a similar compound. Polishing like this is only replacing superficial scratches with even finer superficial scratches which are less visible to the naked eye after all.
It would be totally impossible to determine how many polishes a watch has had, as it is equally impossible to determine how thorough each polish was.
No amount of polishing is going to touch the bottom surface of the scratches, which will remain unaltered, save by the effects of time, from the date they were made until such a time as the polishing reaches the full depth of the scratch and the scratch then ceases to be a scratch any longer.
The “Silver enrichment” at the base of the scratches is therefore unaffected by any attempt or attempts to polish the case.
It doesn’t look to me as though any conclusions are being drawn about polishing events, but merely the relative dates of the individual scratches based on the degree to which the “mounding” has been rounded or eroded by polishing over time, and the enrichment of silver within.
Does this make sense?
Regards
Paul
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 241
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:52 am: | |
Hi,
Having finished a quick read through the diary, I've noticed some interesting statements by the diarist that relate to my previous thoughts.
First, I suggested the possibility that because the diarist claims no pleasure over the Manchester victim, then he may no longer "count" this one and hence leaves it out of his "watch list". However, quite late in the diary (page 246/285 in my copy; 1st page indicates page of the handwritten version, 2nd page indicates typed transcript page), the diarist states "My first was in Manchester, so why not my next?", indicating that despite the initial lack of pleasure, the diarist does count this victim and still must believe they are dead. So, it still could be considered a bit problematic that there is no indication of this "1st" on the watch list. (This entry is shortly after MJK's murder, the last of the Watch's list).
Now, shortly after this entry, the diarist tells us he will be in Manchester soon, which is the location he just told us is where he plans his next victim (pgs. 252/287).
And then, on pages 253/288 the diarist claims: "... I could not cut like my last, visions of her flooded back as I struck. I tried to quosh all thoughts of love. I left her for dead, that I know. It did not amuse me. There was thrill. I have showered my fury on the bitch I struck and struck. I do not know how I stopped. I have left her penniless, I have no regrets..." anyway, this passage is telling us of a seventh victim, and by implication of the previous entries, this is also in Manchester.
Shouldn't this one also be included on the watch?
Also, on page 267/292, the diarist again suggests that the diary, if destroyed, would be the destruction of the only written record of his involvement. Suggesting there is no watch by the diarist. However, this is a very weak claim, because the primary concern in the diarist's entry is to be "understood". The diary would "explain", while the watch would only "implicate". Regardless, the diarist never indicates, or hints, at any concern over a "watch list", nor does he ever boast of "wearing them in plain sight", etc. The closest might be the "initial here an initial there" passage, but that seems to be suggesting that these are clues left at crime scenes.
Anyway, I don't present any of this as definitive, but only as things that must be considered. Obviously, the forgery explanation can handle these things easily. The issue is how easily can a "non-forgery" explanation?
- Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:51 am: | |
Paul Stephen wrote:
I’m glad this is losing you as well as me!
I think we really need to see more of Wild's explanation about his assumptions and reasoning before we can be sure what could be concluded from his measurements of silver enrichment.
Wild’s comment to me reads as though the polishing event he mentions is the ONLY time the watch was ever polished. At least to our knowledge.
Yes, it reads to me as though he was assuming one polishing, and trying to determine whether it came before or after the scratches.
That would be very pertinent information if there had been only one polishing in the mid-late 80s, but not if there could have been another in 1993.
Chris Phillips
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
