|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:14 am: |       |
Caz,
"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."
Not necessarily. The polishing would remove the outer layers of the surface, and not from the scratches. However the bits at the base of the marking wouldn't resemble the original gold surface. It's layers would be those below the original surface.
"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. "
It was certainly polished after the marks were made. He would not have been able to determine that the base of the scratches would be consistent with the original surface, because they would have been BELOW the original surface. As the issue Wild is describing is silver enrichment near the surface, they couldn't have been consistent. In any case, I don't believe there are any unpolished areas on the watch he could have used for comparison. For the silver enrichment to tell us anything at all regarding the age of the scratches relative to the surface, we would need samples taken at several points, and the actual rate of silver enrichment would need to be determined. Also, it would be necessary to determine if the enrichment process is continues indefinitely, or stabilizes after a time.
"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".
Well, I don't dabble in risk assessment. However if we're assuming that the "H 9/3" was added afterwards, then the rest of the scratches would have been too. So the risk isn't any greater IMO.
Jeff,
"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."
The lack of mention of the watch in the diary has troubled me for a while. I can't imagine that if both were genuine that it would have not been mentioned anywhere in the diary. I also agree regarding the diary being implied as the only evidence of his guilt being problematic. If the watch existed it seems likely it would have been brought up there.
Paul,
"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."
We don't know that at the moment. We don't have any information regarding the rate of silver enrichment which could take place over a relatively short time frame for all we know.
I will be looking forward to what you have discovered in regards to the "1275".
Chris,
"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."
Absolutely true. We need more information before we can make any conclusions about how reliable his silver enrichment speculations are.
Best Regards,
John |
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Hi one and all from the newly registered me! (Now with added Surname.)
John.
“The polishing would remove the outer layers of the surface, and not from the scratches. However the bits at the base of the marking wouldn't resemble the original gold surface. Its layers would be those below the original surface.”
I’m afraid not. These are scratchings and not engravings. Virtually no metal is removed when simply scratching gold. All the scratches have done is to push the original surface lower and to the sides. Hence the “mounding.” How the burnishing effect of the tool used would affect the surface is another matter, and one I’m happy to leave to Turgoose. The original surface would nevertheless be present still.
“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. "
That is exactly right in my humble view.
“In any case, I don't believe there are any unpolished areas on the watch he could have used for comparison. For the silver enrichment to tell us anything at all regarding the age of the scratches relative to the surface, we would need samples taken at several points, and the actual rate of silver enrichment would need to be determined.”
There are loads of places in this watch that won’t have seen polish since it was made. The inside of the bezel would never have been touched, under the movement hinge is another. There’s plenty of scope to find original Victorian surfaces here. There’s a steel spring inside the case which causes the back to pop open for winding. Beneath that will be a virgin surface too.
“However if we're assuming that the "H 9/3" was added afterwards, then the rest of the scratches would have been too.”
I’m not quite with it here. Why must the rest of the scratches have been added afterwards? H 9 3 goes over the scratches we’re told.
“We don't know that at the moment. We don't have any information regarding the rate of silver enrichment which could take place over a relatively short time frame for all we know.”
I agree with you here John. We do need confirmation, but my understanding is that silver enrichment takes decades before it becomes noticeable in 18 carat gold.
After all said and done, Wild and Turgoose are experts in their respective fields, and have access to sophisticated equipment, which they have used to make similar findings concerning the age of these scratches. No amount of armchair metallurgy from us, myself included, is going to make a scrap of difference. Until we are able to read, and hopefully understand, the full reports of these two gentlemen we would do well I think to treat their findings with some degree of respect....
Regards
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Paul Butler wrote:
We do need confirmation, but my understanding is that silver enrichment takes decades before it becomes noticeable in 18 carat gold.
This is something that Wild apparently changed his mind about between the earlier draft and the final version. One of the puzzling things is that the earlier draft reads as though he hadn't observed any difference in silver enrichment, and therefore concluded that the profile formed quickly.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 835
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
In my best photo, the E of CE looks very similar to the E of ES – ie it’s a rounded old-fashioned capital E (like a little e only bigger), the style I adopted while at school for all my capital letters. It does look a bit like a B at first, because of the roundedness, but it doesn’t appear to join up at the bottom like a B does.
Hi John,
Here are Paul’s words 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.’
Are you saying this is simply not the case, or that it might not be?
Could the silver enrichment at the base of the scratches really have built up in the short time between the scratches being made circa May 1993 (followed by a polishing of the entire surface that wouldn't have reached the base of the newly-made scratches), and the examinations in the August and the following January? I'm struggling to understand all this.
I'm also intrigued by the idea that these two independent UK university-based metallurgists must apparently have had so much difficulty with the relative whereabouts of their arses and elbows in order that the scratches could still have been made by a hoaxer as late as 1993.  (My old gag about Wild Turgoose chases has worn a bit thin.)
Interesting stuff, but I’m even more interested in that H 9 3 and the implications for the modern hoax theory. It seems to me that the options for the ‘believers’ have now been worn away to the following two scenarios:
Turgoose got the basics badly wrong, and ‘I am Jack’ was scratched after the H 9 3, not before.
Turgoose got it right, and Albert or Robbie (or someone thus far unidentified) chose to engrave H 9 3 (for as yet unknown reasons) on top of the ‘I am Jack’ in 1993, and then kept going back to where Albert purchased the watch to ask questions about its recent history.
I still don’t get the argument about William Maybrick being an engraver. Why would this make it unlikely that James would ever have owned a watch and not had his initials engraved on it? The watch in question was made when James was but a small boy, so he would hardly have bought it new. He could have acquired it second hand at any time, including after his father’s death (which was when?), or not too long before his own in 1889, and it could have had the JO engraved on its cover at any time by another owner, before or since.
There are all sorts of reasons why James may not have had JM engraved on it, despite his father’s profession. My mother was a maths teacher, but I never asked for any practical help with the subject – and she never expected me to, neither would she have tried to force it upon me.
I never mind seeing arguments that may have an outside chance of actually going somewhere, but arguments that can prove absolutely nothing just tend to make the place more untidy than it needs to be.
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
Paul,
"I’m afraid not. These are scratchings and not engravings. Virtually no metal is removed when simply scratching gold. All the scratches have done is to push the original surface lower and to the sides. Hence the “mounding.” How the burnishing effect of the tool used would affect the surface is another matter, and one I’m happy to leave to Turgoose. The original surface would nevertheless be present still."
The original metal may mostly be present, but the effect of mounding would alter the layering of the metal. If it's pushed downward, there WILL be an effect because the metal underneath it would go elsewhere. While the metal of the surface might still be on the watch, it will no longer be in it's original form.
"There are loads of places in this watch that won’t have seen polish since it was made. The inside of the bezel would never have been touched, under the movement hinge is another. There’s plenty of scope to find original Victorian surfaces here. There’s a steel spring inside the case which causes the back to pop open for winding. Beneath that will be a virgin surface too."
Assuming that it's the same material as the back, and manufactured at the same it might be a good benchmark. But I doubt it was tested in this case.
"I’m not quite with it here. Why must the rest of the scratches have been added afterwards? H 9 3 goes over the scratches we’re told."
I was responding to Caz's suggestion that there would be risk for Albert (If he were a hoaxer) to add the "H 9/3". In my opinion it wouldn't be any greater than the risk of adding "I am Jack" or "James Maybrick".
"I agree with you here John. We do need confirmation, but my understanding is that silver enrichment takes decades before it becomes noticeable in 18 carat gold."
We're not talking about visually noticeable though. We're talking about an examination with Auger electron spectroscopy. A much more sensitive device, nor do we know the degree of enrichment.
"After all said and done, Wild and Turgoose are experts in their respective fields, and have access to sophisticated equipment, which they have used to make similar findings concerning the age of these scratches. No amount of armchair metallurgy from us, myself included, is going to make a scrap of difference. Until we are able to read, and hopefully understand, the full reports of these two gentlemen we would do well I think to treat their findings with some degree of respect..."
I don't think it takes an expert to interpret Wild's statement as being speculative and one he isn't confident in.
"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."
Obviously he's guessing here.
And I certainly give them all the respect they deserve as competent metallurgists who are not experts in the dating of metal.
Best Regards,
John
(Message edited by jhacker on March 09, 2004) |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Caz,
"Could the silver enrichment at the base of the scratches really have built up in the short time between the scratches being made circa May 1993 (followed by a polishing of the entire surface that wouldn't have reached the base of the newly-made scratches), and the examinations in the August and the following January? I'm struggling to understand all this."
I dunno Caz, what does the report say about the rate of silver enrichment?
"I'm also intrigued by the idea that these two independent UK university-based metallurgists must apparently have had so much difficulty with the relative whereabouts of their arses and elbows in order that the scratches could still have been made by a hoaxer as late as 1993. (My old gag about Wild Turgoose chases has worn a bit thin.)"
Not to belabor the point here, but they are not experts in scratch dating. There are no such beasts. Turgoose found worn scratches, some of which cross each other. Wild looked at a particle that was corroded. From this that made assumptions regarding the age of the scratches that cannot be made with any accuracy.
Turgoose said they could have been done recently? Was Turgoose wrong about that?
Best Regards,
John |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 242
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
John,
The only explanation I can think of that might explain why the watch is not mentioned in the diary without resorting to a forgery is the possibility that the watch scratchings were made after the last entry in the diary. The diarist claims to have told "Bunny" everything, meaning he's at least admitted her guilt and at most told her of the diary as well. If he then wants to ensure that his confession gets found, he then makes the scratches fearing she will search for, find, and destroy the diary.
However, even this explanation doesn't explain the lack of any indication of what appear to be two victims in Manchester: one strangulation before and one multiple stabbing after the canonical five. Neither of which, to my knowledge, has be verified as actually happening. The latter, based upon the entries, should be after Kelly but before Christmas of 1888 (I think)
- Jeff |
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
Hi John and all.
Now I’ve got my own password there will be no stopping me!
I think we’re going to disagree a bit over all this John. It’s fine by me, but all I’ll say is I’ve been working with metal all my life and I can only base my views on my own experience. None of us have scanning electron microscopes, nor would we know what do do with one if we did, but we can hope to maybe see exactly what the experts did conclude one day.
This watch is solid gold, and Hallmarked to say so. It will all be the same gold throughout by law, so there will be plenty of virgin surface if needed in the future.
Both Wild and Turgoose concluded that the scratches were probably quite a few decades old. They didn’t state this categorically, and you wouldn’t expect them to. No expert ever will, and I’m sure if there are future tests all we would get is a probability again. That’s experts for you!
“Turgoose said they could have been done recently? Was Turgoose wrong about that?”
Turgoose did say the scratches could have been done recently. I agree with you that they possibly could. BUT, and this is a very big BUT, he then went on to give that statement a huge, whopping qualification concerning how near impossible it would be if you didn’t have recourse to a SEM and considerable scientific knowledge..!
Hi Jeff
Nice to see another regular in here, and looking at it from another angle too!
Regards
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:43 pm: | |
Jeff,
The idea that the scratching were made post diary is an interesting one. But I must admit I find the lack of the alleged manchester victims on the watch to be quite troublesome.
And as the watch creator plumped for the cannonical 5, if it's a hoax that would place it later in time. I can't recall when the "cannonical 5" became the commonly accepted victims. It was post-Matters though.
Paul,
Actually Turgoose didn't say they would need access to an SEM. Nor did he say it would be near impossible. He felt that it would be "complex", and that the forger would need "considerable scientific awareness". And when his report boils down to some scratches crossing other scratches, and that there was some polishing done, I think most highschool kids could work out the basics.
His assertion that the forger would need to be aware of the potential evidence that an SEM could reveal is frankly silly. As the technique is simply utilitizing different tools to scratch, intermediate polishing and wearing stages, and the crossing of scratches one doesn't need to be aware of what is happening at the microscopic level. That will take care of itself.
While Dr. Turgoose is quite qualified to run the tools, I don't really think he's qualified to assess the level of sophistication required by a hoaxer. It's simply not within his area of expertise. While should never dismiss the testimony of experts out of hand, we must always remember what their area of expertise actually is, and what of their statements can be considered as expert opinion.
Best Regards,
John
(Message edited by jhacker on March 09, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
I did think that comment by Turgoose about the SEM was a bit strange. But not having access to the full report, I couldn't really work out what he was referring to. The most likely thing I could think of was the brass particles in the scratches. But perhaps I'm completely mistaken, as we know that Wild took these as possible evidence that the scratches weren't recent (if the watch had been kept in a normal chemical environment), but we don't know what Turgoose thought of them (though he did apparently see them).
I think there's a really strong case to be made for abstaining from further comment about the scientific findings until the reports are published. I'd only ask that, as one of Wild's detailed findings - about the silver enrichment - differed by 180 degrees between the earlier and later drafts of his report, that both should be published. Or else, if that would involve too much tedious duplication, excerpts could be given of the earlier draft wherever they differ significantly from the final one.
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 244
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Hi,
If we go with the idea that the scratches are "post-diary", something along the lines of the scenerio I suggested above, it then seems most reasonable to expect that the scratches would have been placed all at the same time, rather than in sequence as the murders happened.
Does the analysis of the watch allow for this? If not, it would point away from my suggested line of reasoning.
Hi Paul,
I have absolutely no expertise concerning the scratch analysis, etc. Given that both the diary and the watch are so hotly debated, I was wondering if it was possible to find anything in the diary that makes it hard to fit the watch and diarist together. Obviously, the watch contains very little information (in this sense) to work with, hence my pondering on the two claimed Manchester victims missing from the watch and the statements in the diary that seem to imply no other record was made by the diarist.
With so little to work with, and with all the evidence being of the "why isn't it there" kind, there's no way these can be considered definitive. One can always find a plausible explanation for the lack of information. Example, the watch is made post diary sign off for the reasons above. The two Manchester victims are not mentioned because the press never linked them in to the series and the diarist decided at that point only to list those that he had names for and that were linked in public opinion to the name JtR. Or only listed "his best work", etc. Had the watch claimed Stride and the diarist stated "she's not one of mine", it would have been different of course.
Oh well, what can you do?
- Jeff |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:54 pm: | |
Jeff,
Different tools were used to inscribe the various marks. Here's a snippet from an earlier post by Caz who is quoting (and annotating) from Turgoose's report.
"the implement used for the ‘ac’ and ‘mk’ was ‘different again’ (ie from the implement used for ‘I am Jack’ and ‘J Maybrick’, the one used for the ‘1275’, and the one used for the ‘H 9/3’), but ‘could have been the same for the two cases' (ie the ‘ac’ and the ‘mk’)."
It sounds like if they were done in one sitting then they were "switching pens" fairly frequently.
Best Regards,
John |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 246
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:02 pm: | |
Thanks John! That does make any line of "post-diary" reasoning pretty difficult to maintain as one has to start making all sorts of strange caveates and adjustments. So, one starts dealing in "it's possible" but not "probable" or even "reasonable".
- Jeff |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:14 pm: | |
Jeff,
Well, I'm afraid that strange caveats and adjustments, and possible but not probable or even reasonable is par for the course for the diary discussion.
It all depends on your point of view I fear.
Best Regards,
John |
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:01 pm: | |
Hi Jeff and John
A quick post and then it's bed for me.
The analysys of the watch suggests brass tools being used for some of the scratches. These would go blunt very quickly and a lot of "switching pens," or turning of the tool, would be likely either at the "one sitting" theory, or the one entry at a time version. I can't see that getting us anywhere.
John.
All I'm saying in relation to Turgoose is that he's an expert in his field. He felt that he would not be able to replicate what he had seen in the watch, and I think we should accord him some credit. To suggest a schoolchild could have done it is overstating things in the extreme. If his findings had been the other way around, and confirmed everyones suspicions of a circa 1992 hoax, then we wouldn't be here discussing it now. But he didn't......!
Jeff.
Your comments have been very enlightening. Just for the record, my view is that I find the post 1991 hoax scenario so hopelessly covoluted and implausible that I tend towards the expert opinion that these darned scratches are certainly more than a few decades old. Whether by Maybrick or a contemporary is something else, and if and when we do get something of a concensus around the date, and it seem we may be talking about properly old scratches, then we are all in for a fascinating time.
But I could be wrong of course......
Regards and good night
Paul |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Paul,
Turgoose never said he couldn't replicate what he had seen in the watch. Nor did Wild for that matter. (Wild said he couldn't "implant aged brass particles" into the base of the scratches. Not that he couldn't corrode existing particles.)
Frankly I don't think the basic concepts are beyond most high school kids. You are certainly free to disagree, but it's entirely possible a hoaxer didn't know anything about the "possibilities" of SEM and merely wanted to wear the scratches down to cause the appearance of age. This isn't rocket science. It's simply a question of thinking the matter through.
If either Turgoose or Wild had been able to definitively state that the scratches were old we wouldn't be here either. But still we're here.... Hmmmm....
For the record, I don't see what's so convoluted about layering the scratches and polishing 'em out. It seems pretty straight forward to me.
Best Regards,
John |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 247
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:51 pm: | |
It seems to me that if the watch initials were made in 1888 by James Maybrick (or whoever), then what is one likely to use? The first thing that comes to mind would be to use the corner of a pen nib. Were pen nibs made of brass in 1888?
It also occurs to me that if I were to forge such a watch, I would still use a pen nib, for the very reason that it's what I would expect the original person to have used, and that's who I want people to believe did it. And, if I was a forger who had enough forethought and money to purchase a gold Victorian pocket watch, and to remember to "age" the scratches, etc, I certainly would have enough money and forethought to purchase an old pen to use to put in the initials.
So, I had a look to see if I could find any information on what pen nibs were made from and came across this web-site:
http://jquarter.members.beeb.net/morepentrade.htm
Here they describe that pen-nibs were made from brass, though steel was more common. Expensive ones were also plated with gold or silver, but cheep ones were varnished.
Now, if one used a Victorian era pen nib that had corroded, could the particles of corroded brass from the nib get embedded during the scratching (whenever that was)? Or does the brass have to be “fresh” when embedded, and then it corroded later?
I must say, I'm finding out all sorts of esoteric stuff about pen nibs.
- Jeff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 840
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Hi John,
Privately, one of the experts – Wild I think – told Robert Smith that he didn’t believe he could do what a hoaxer is meant to have done. This has been posted at least twice recently, by Robert and myself.
Hi Jeff,
I think the marks could have been made in the following order:
‘J Maybrick’ first, then ‘I am Jack’ followed by the initials, including MK, all in one session.
Equally, ‘I am Jack’, ES and CE could have been the first ripper marks to be made, with MN and AC added immediately afterwards, followed finally by MK.
It might help if we knew which was made first, MN or ES. The M and the S appear to cross one another, but I don’t think Turgoose give any indication of the order here.
It would make a lot of sense that the 1275 and the H 9 3 were made by two different implements, and different again from the tool used for the words, and the one (or more) used for the victims’ initials. A tick mark apparently ‘used yet another’ tool. Had a hoaxer thoughtlessly used the same tool for the H 9 3 and any of the other ripper marks he’d have been in big trouble.
Both references to ‘Manchester’ victims are tricky, because the language of the diary is too vague in my view for many of the assumptions I see being made. For example, the language allows for the first victim to have survived without Sir Jim’s knowledge, and a half-strangled surviving victim in a red light district in Manchester may have had all sorts of reasons not to report an attack by a man to whom she had been offering her services.
The second so-called Manchester murder is even trickier (and a very clever piece of psychological writing IMHO) because the diarist is obviously talking about the victim and Florie almost in the same breath, as if he is confusing the two in his mind, and it becomes very hard to tell exactly what he thinks he has done to whom, or what he may only be fantasising about doing. Let me explain:
The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another.
Clearly he is talking about Florie here, and if the new whore master is supposed to be Brierley, then Florie’s lover who shares the blame with her for sparking off Sir Jim’s murderous campaign must have been someone else entirely.
I could not cut like my last, visions of her flooded back as I struck. I tried to quosh all thoughts of love.
Does this mean he couldn’t cut to the same extent as he did last time, because visions of what he did to MJK flooded back as he was cutting this one? Possibly, except that if this was meant to be another outdoor job, he would hardly have been in any position to mutilate so extensively, horrible visions or thoughts of love notwithstanding.
Another possible interpretation is that, as he went for this victim’s throat (ie as he struck), visions of her (could be MJK or Florie here) flooded back and, because he couldn’t stop thinking about his love for her (Florie), he found he couldn’t cut at all this time (ie he could not cut and/or rip as he had before).
I left her for dead, that I know. It did not amuse me. There was thrill.
Leaving someone for dead is hardly the same as knowing you have just slit their throat from ear to ear, nearly decapitating them. It could, like his first, be suggestive of an unsatisfying strangling (no pleasure as he squeezed) that he only assumed had proved fatal. I think he probably meant There was no thrill, but his brain may have been working faster than his pen here.
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.
In one breath he has gone from talking about his inability to cut this latest victim like the last, because love is on his mind, to talking about leaving Florie penniless, and apparently having lost his temper with ‘the bitch’, striking her (hitting her?) at least twice in fury.
The passage preceding this one refers to This coming Christmas, and the following passage to the children having enjoyed Christmas. But at no point does Sir Jim confirm (or deny) that he found this last unsatisfying victim in Manchester. For all we know he could have been referring to Rose Mylett. It all fits, doesn't it?
Running out of steam, perhaps, and gradually moving towards the self-destruct button, after so much death and destruction and so much arsenic?
If the Sir Jim of the diary wanted to record the details in a watch, might he have preferred only to remember the ‘ripping’ times?
Who knows? But it all makes for a corker of a ripping yarn.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by caz on March 10, 2004) |
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Hi John.
“The final chapter” Page 38. Half way down.
Paul Feldman. “If you bought a genuine Victorian watch, would you be able to create what you have seen?”
Dr. Turgoose. “NO”.
Couldn’t be much clearer than that John.
Of course there’s nothing convoluted about making the scratches. I thought we’d agreed on that ages ago. The scenario you have to create to explain the watch’s creation, and subsequent appearance is another matter entirely. At the very least you have to accept Albert Johnson is a hoaxer or co-conspiritor if you go for the 1992 diary connection theory, and in the light of his subsequent actions that seems less likely than James Maybrick being JTR...! 
Hi Jeff
A brass nib is exactly what I think was used. I posted here about that very thing what seems like ages ago now.
A couple of the scratches, if you look really closely, seem to show almost a double mark, as if a split nib had done it. I’m with you all the way on that one. I’m not so sure brass nibs are that easy to come by now, and I’m fairly certain a hoaxer would have used a steel one based on availability. Much easier to scratch brass, and much easier to buy. My local art shop has trays full of “mapping nibs” but none are brass. Keep up the research though, as I could be wrong.
Its amazing all the esoteric stuff you do collect, trying to sort this thing out. I’m a mine of useless information now. None of which did I even think about a few years back.
Hi Caz
Another corker without a doubt. Keep it up. The more you read the diary, the more an opened mind is likely to find. That’s why I still find it so darned fascinating and irritatingly clever!
Regards
Paul
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 250
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Yes, I thought I recalled some dispute over the 2nd Manchester victim, but I wasn't sure if my memory served correct.
Anyway, it's neither here nor there if the Manchester victim actually survived so long as "Sir Jim" believes she did not. In his mind, she's dead and it is "his beliefs" we are to believe are being recorded on both the diary and the watch. Of course, if the Manchester victim in reality survived, then it could very well have gone unreported for all the reasons you list. Even if she did not survive, at the time (spring 1888 I think), it wouldn't necessarily have received much press attention.
The 2nd victim does reference his wife as well, and just after these passages, he writes of the Children and Christmas (Sorry, I'm working from memory here as I'm early to work). It sounded to me as I read it, that's the wonderful thing about a good story is that the reader fills in so much not actually said, that "Sir Jim" was back from his trip to Manchester when making this entry. Hence, the interleaving of thoughts of both his wife and the last victim.
It was the definite statement "I left her for dead", that indicated to me that here he is definitely claiming another victim. True, he does not directly place this victim in Manchester, and Rose Mylett might just "fit the bill", but the diarist seems to have built himself up for the Manchester trip. As he tends to record his frustrations, I would expect if he failed to find a victim, that would have been included.
However, what I expect others to do is not always what they do, and that should be remembered.
On the other hand, if Rose is supposed to be the victim, there is also no entry indicating a trip to London nor is there an RM on the watch. Rose's murder was covered in the press at the time, so we can't suggest that her name was not available.
The inability to cut I took to indicate that he was losing his will to rip up his victims ("I couldn't bring myself to do it", sort of thing). It's shortly after this entry (if I recall correctly) that he has his "epiphany" and tells all to his wife. I got the impression this is the "starting phase" of that transformation.
Mind you, we're dealing with interpretations here. The one you've offered also fits the character of the diarist, who is clearly not supposed to be quite well, and who even questions his own sanity as he writes. The claimed "victim" may have been figment.
However, since the diarist is supposed to be James Maybrick, and there is no indication (apart from the diary) that James was going insane, the kind of reality/fantisy confusion we're talking about here doesn't fit James Maybrick. Insanity of this nature doesn't just turn on when you pick up a pen and turn off when you put it down. If it did, the cost of treatment would be far lower and I would buy shares in a disposable pen company! ha!
So, if the diarist is James Maybrick, I don't think the claim the diarist is unable to separate fantasy from reality is supportable. Which leaves us with the alternative, there is supposed to be another, non-mutilated, victim. And your suggestion of Rose works in that context (though of course, it doesn't have to be Rose, she simply could be the victim he's referring to).
Now, since I'm supposed to be talking about the watch ...
To cover all the bases though, let's allow for the possablity that I'm wrong and the diarist did not actually kill anyone (in this case), and the whole attack is a fantasy he thinks is reality. What's important is that the diarist believes he now has 7 victims, whether or not he only has 6 in reality, in his mind he has claimed 7.
Which means once again, it's neither here nor there if the diarist has only come to believe he's killed again. As long as the diarist believes he has 7 victims, the watch scratcher seems to only believe in 5, and the canonical 5 at that.
Certainly this is not definitive proof against the watch, nor do I present it as such. What this is, however, is something that does need consideration.
What it does rule out, however, is the notion of a "common forger" (watch and diary forged in some large conspiracy theory). In such a case, one would expect one of these additional victims at least to be indicated on the watch to add "authenticity".
- Jeff
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
Jeff,
"Now, if one used a Victorian era pen nib that had corroded, could the particles of corroded brass from the nib get embedded during the scratching (whenever that was)? Or does the brass have to be “fresh” when embedded, and then it corroded later?"
That's a good question to which there hasn't been any expert testimony on. Melvin Harris said "yes", but he's not an expert in the field. I would tend to think that if only a piece of the corrosion broke off it would be possible though. But of course it's a simple process to artificially corrode brass.
"What it does rule out, however, is the notion of a 'common forger' (watch and diary forged in some large conspiracy theory). In such a case, one would expect one of these additional victims at least to be indicated on the watch to add 'authenticity'."
I agree completely. A common forger would almost certainly have made sure that the Manchester victims were represented. The handwriting would also be more likely to bear a resemblence to that of the diary.
Caz and Paul,
If either Turgoose or Wild would care to explain why they couldn't create the marks, after Turgoose was so good as to explain exactly how to do so, I would be glad to take their testimony into account. We have two unexplained hearsay "no"s, and a clear and detailed "yes" from Turgoose in his actual report. Sorry. I'm not convinced.
Best Regards,
John |
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 6:38 pm: | |
Hi John.
We have a definite point of agreement here! We do need to know if the suggestion was that the brass particles were corroded before being embedded in the scratches or not. The fact that it impressed Wild so much would imply that he was suggesting they had corroded in situ, but I agree this is not entirely clear.
Don’t forget though, that this has been tried. Didn’t Stanley Dangar arrange for this to be replicated in lab conditions, and it failed miserably?
If a corroded brass implement, like an old nib, had been used, then any corrosion would wear off the tip quite quickly, I would guess, and you wouldn’t expect it to appear in many of the scratches. Wild said contaminated as well as corroded. Ink possibly?
If 1275, and H 9 3 were not put there by the creator of the Maybrick scratches, which I firmly believe they weren’t, then I would not expect there to have been any brass particles found in those particular marks. Perhaps Caz can enlighten us on that.
I have done a great deal of research on watch repair marks and casemaker marks over the last week. Sad I know, but true, and I can now say with complete certainty that 1275 is a Casemakers mark. This being the case, we can safely conclude that it was made in 1846, and is therefore the oldest mark on the watch, and a good reference point for dating the others.
Having looked through literally hundreds of old sale records and illustrations, I came across another almost identical gold watchcase made by RS. The same maker as our watch. This one is hallmarked for 1844 and is also in 18 carat gold, as you would expect.
Crucially, this other watchcase is numbered 724, and this is identified as the casemakers serial number, in the same way as our watchcase is numbered 1275. This other watch also has 724 engraved on the movement, where our watch has 1286.
724 is a casemakers mark, used to make sure the correct movement goes into the right case, and so is our 1275..! Two years later RS has made another 550 gold cases and ours is numbered accordingly.
Not exactly a revelation I know, but one more piece to fit into the jigsaw.
I checked many other watches to verify why our watch hasn’t got the logical 1275 engraved on the movement as well as the case. In very many instances there is a small difference in numbers. This, I believe is to do with watches being made up in batches.
Well there you are. A little bit more to think about. This may help when we get to see the watch reports, or would certainly be of use if any future testing should be considered. If anyone is prepared to believe the results that is…! (Only kidding!).
Regards and good night
Paul
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 255
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:49 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
Since we're dealing with particles of corroded brass, they could come from the side of the nib, and not necessarily the point of the tip (the particles could scrape off the side, fall into the "trench", and get pressed in from the scratching, etc).
If a fairly square nib were used, the corners are quite sharp, giving the scratcher 2 corners to work with, and hence two sides of particles as well. Slanted nibs would work well, but only one point/one side would be available.
Copperplate nibs are usually very fine, and though that was the common hand of the time I believe, might be too fragile to be of much use? I've played with caligraphy, and some of the nibs used in that area would be quite suitable though. But you're right, the modern ones are mostly steel. Even in Victoria times it seems steel was more common, though brass was used. I'm assuming that if we're dealing with a reasonably clever forger (which we would have to since they would have to know to age the scratchings, etc), then they would be wise enough to use a Victorian era nib to do the job. They can be purchased, and are not at all expensive (5 pounds for 10 of them on some web sites), which is nothing compared to the cost of the watch. Of course, if the scratches are "real", then obviously any pen nib used would be from the right time period.
If the contamination is from ink, that would be very interesting and certainly would be strong evidence in support of my hypothesis. There could be all the "ink" arguements applied to the watch as well as the diary. Hmmmmm, maybe we don't want that though? ha!
Anyway, a nib would make perfect sense to me, but obviously it's only a suggestion. If we knew what the contamination was, that might shed some light on things. Of course, since I'm assuming that if it's a forgery, our forger used a Victorian nib, one would expect the nib to have Victorian ink. But, there is the possibility that the old nib was used more recently, so there might be a chance of finding a smoking gun in such an analysis. It's a one sided test though, as "good ink" could just indicate "good forger".
Ahhh, isn't this fun! ha!
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on March 10, 2004) |
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
Hi Jeff
Oh yes. Fun all the way. Careful, not too many “ha has” though, all you need to do is start underlining a few words and you’ll be unmasked as you know who..!
The choice of a brass tool was just one of many of the things that persuaded me away from the modern, last dozen years, hoax idea. Hardly anything made today that’s sharp and pointy is likely to be brass. Your average Victorian would likely have quite a range to choose from, and I still like the pen nib idea the best.
Don’t forget though, that these scratches are very fine and light indeed, and are made on a wafer thin gold surface. The photo is rather misleading on this. In real life the scratches are almost invisible. A very fine point would have to have been used. Your copperplate nib idea sounds fine to me. A flat nib may have been too coarse.
The idea of planting aged and corroded brass particles in gold doesn’t sound that clever, but it has been tried, and they didn’t stick! The inference from Wild is that they aged in situ, but that point isn’t entirely clear as yet.
The problem we have here is in trying to fit together a puzzle when we haven’t got all the pieces. It’s never going to work until we have them all, or at least most of them.
If the watch was created on the back of the diary, which of all the various hoax ideas is the least implausible, then at the very least we have been told whopping great fibs by both Albert Johnson and the Murphys, who sold him the watch.
The trouble with this idea is that neither seems to have had any sensible motive for doing so. Albert spent a good deal of his own money on tests, which could have easily caught him out as far as he knew, and the Murphys have made not a penny.
Despite having “got away with it”, Albert then refuses a very large sum of money to sell the watch. The watch that has by now been “authenticated” by two leading Universities.
Baffling isn’t it?
Regards
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
But is there any evidence that James actually ever made it to Manchester in the lead up to Christmas 1888? Perhaps he changed his plans or they fell through, in which case he wouldn’t have been trying – or failing - to find a victim there and feeling frustrated as a result.
If one assumes a hoaxer was at work, inventing the plans for a second invented Manchester murder – and his swansong - to sandwich the London victims between, one is hampered by the assumption that he naturally went on to record the execution (literally) of those plans. One wouldn’t expect a hoaxer to raise certain fairly specific and explicit storyline expectations in the reader, only to decide not to fulfil them as described, nor to offer any explanation for not doing so. With carefully planned fiction, we tend to read what we are told to expect we are going to read, then rate the storyteller's abilities accordingly.
But Sir Jim could write about his plans to do one thing, and then write about what he actually did, without seeing any need to inform himself in his diary of any changes of plan in the interim, enforced or otherwise. Very subtle writing - if this is a hoaxer who evidently knows the difference between writing a storyline to audience expectation (where a thought leads to an action, an action to a reaction), and writing as if he may be the only person ever to read it, with the appropriate gaps and subtleties to represent all the thoughts and actions that would go unexpressed.
Towards the end of the diary, Sir Jim again mentions the visions that have apparently stopped him from being able to strike again:
…I walk the streets until dawn. I could not find it in my heart to strike, visions of my dear Bunny overwhelm me. I still love her, but now I hate her.
Sir Jim only thinks he must be going mad, which would be quite understandable in the circumstances. How many people up to their eyes in arsenic and ripped bodies would not doubt their own sanity?
But it’s my belief that serial killers are rarely insane, as in the sense of having a recognisable mental illness. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the kind of people who lead secret double lives, involving ‘unacceptable’ fantasies, that they go on to act out, can, do and indeed must turn their hidden side on and off as quickly as picking up a pen and putting it down again – especially where criminal activity like murder is involved. That is exactly how they get away with it and keep getting away with it. It’s my belief that the Sir Jim of the diary would have been able to change back in an instant, if caught writing an entry, to James Maybrick – until he goes into self-destruct mode.
When other factors come into play, like increased dependence on drugs, worsening general health and strength, depression and self-doubt, that leads to carelessness and mistakes being made, the road to self-destruction comes into view, and the ability to keep both lives intact and under control, and firmly in their separate boxes, is undermined accordingly.
That’s how I see it anyway. And this is reflected clearly in the diary too.
Incidentally, I still think the Sir Jim of the diary might only have wanted to record in his watch the five ‘ripping’ murders in Whitechapel that gave him a thrill. Stride gets in because she ‘allowed’ him to go on and bag two in one night. If his thrills increased in proportion to the newspaper coverage, how sensational it was, and the public’s reaction, that would also lessen the incentive to put the others in.
Hi John,
Perhaps you could put your concerns and questions directly to Wild and Turgoose at some point? Surely Turgoose was simply trying to explain how a hoaxer could have done it, in the event that a hoaxer did do it and had not made any obvious mistakes. If he had declared it completely out of the question, on the grounds that he couldn’t have done it himself, that wouldn’t have been very professional, would it?
For a start, since everyone (as you keep saying) acknowledges that scratches in gold simply cannot be dated, then for Turgoose to declare it impossible for them to be recent would not have been the most logical or sensible move. And if other information had turned up to prove that a hoaxer with all the necessary know-how and materials was indeed responsible, he’d have looked even more the fool than he is being painted (not by you necessarily, I hasten to add, but at least one other person has chosen to assume Turgoose was wrong about the H 9 3 post-dating the ripper marks).
Hi Paul,
Turgoose reports seeing particles in the bases of an ‘a’ and a ‘k’ (although it’s not clear which), but I don’t know about any being found in either the 1275 or that fabulously sexy H 9 3. 
Love,
Caz
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
