|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 7:32 am: |       |
Paul Butler wrote:
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.
Why do you think the Murphys would have to be lying if the scratches were made in 1993?
The watch that has by now been “authenticated” by two leading Universities.
I think it's going way too far to say that they authenticated the watch.
Neither Turgoose nor Wild says this. Turgoose specifically said he couldn't rule out that the scratches were modern, though he thought producing them would have been a complicated business. Wild emphasised the limited nature of the data and said more work was needed.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:16 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
Perhaps you could put your concerns and questions directly to Wild and Turgoose at some point?
That would be rather premature, if there's a prospect of their reports being published.
You mentioned previously that copyright was potentially a problem. Do you know who holds the copyright to these reports - the authors, or Shirley Harrison, or Albert Johnson?
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
"I think it's going way too far to say that they authenticated the watch."
So do I Chris. Hence the very clear quotation marks to "qualify" that comment. Whoops, there I go again. Nevertheless, Albert had got away with it
Regards
Paul |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
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).
Sadly, we can evidently expect every trick in the rhetorical book to be used in discussions about Maybrick, but it's pretty silly to claim anyone has implied Turgoose is a "fool".
On the one hand, various possible explanations have been suggested why "H 9 3" might have been made later than the scratches. On the other - and bearing in mind that we are dealing with indirect reporting of what Turgoose actually said - the possibility has been suggested that he was wrong in thinking that it was.
No one with any scientific experience would interpret this as implying he was a "fool". Scientists know that their findings are always subject to enquiry and challenge - it's part of their training, and part of the scientific method itself. That's one reason why secret reports commissioned by interested parties are definitely not a recipe for good science!
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:52 am: | |
Paul--Hi. Thanks for your comments. "Didn’t Stanley Dangar arrange for this to be replicated in lab conditions, and it failed miserably?"
Where are the results of these tests, may I ask? Personally, I find Dangar's final statements as reported by Linder, Morris, & Skinner less than convincing. Considering his feud with Melvin Harris, his alleged death-bed conversion to the Diary cause smells of sour grapes to me. The authors leave these alleged Spanish tests in a state of suspended animation. Where are they? Can they be produced? You see, I believe too much information regarding the Diary has been left to second-hand evaluations by the various gatekeepers. We need to see the original reports.
You also write above:
Despite having “got away with it”, Albert then refuses a very large sum of money to sell the watch.
Meaning what? The excerpt from Robert E. Davis's letter to the Johnson's solicitor makes it obvious that the Johnsons were holding out for more money. Yes, he refused $30,000---because he evidently wanted a bigger sum! There was also an arrangement (alluded to in Ripper Diary between the Johnsons & Robert Smith to insure that the watch stayed in the UK. No details were given. What was this arrangement? Can Mr. Smith tell us? Was there actually some legal agreement that prevented the Johnsons from selling the watch? Of course, even entirely honest people might like to make a big wad of cash. But the 'refusal' shouldn't be used (as it has been many times in the past) as some indication of Johnson being "above it all", IMHO.
There is something about Johnson's initial letter to Smith that I do not like. Speaking of his watch, Johnson writes: "I am sure if it proved genuine it would help the sale of your forthcoming book." Hmm. I appreciate the testimony of those who have spoke with Johnson and believe in his honesty. But, no, this phrase doesn't quite sit right with me, somehow. Melvin Harris was also uneasy about Robbie Johnson's emphatic dismissal of the Diary as a 'fake'---while insisting that the watch was the real McCoy.
Finally, tell me, what do you make of Paul Feldman saying that Robbie Johnson---calling from Turgoose's lab--- lied to him about what was scratched on the back of the watch? (Johnson feigned ignorance about some of the scratches, despite earlier handing a diagram of them to Feldman). Is something amiss? Is this, too, part of the equation? RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on March 11, 2004) |
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:10 am: | |
Hi Caz
Thanks for that. With the 1275 being a casemaker’s mark, this would have been made with a fine “scribing” tool. And such a tool would be made of steel at any time from the early 19th century right up to date.
The same would also apply to our sexy “H”, and also 20789. None of these should contain brass particles, and they don’t! Certainly nobody did that fancy H with a pen nib, brass or otherwise. It’s far too fluent and professionally done for that.
It all adds up nicely doesn’t it? Interesting!
Sorry Chris. I just read what I wrote earlier. I’m besmirching the Murphys name rather prematurely. They are innocent of all charges unless you go for the 1991-early 1992 hoax theory, when they aren’t.
Of course, if you go for the latter then Albert is probably an unknowing accomplice to a hoax, and the Murphys are firmly in the frame.
In view of the apparently sophisticated nature of the watch “hoax”, I think either explanation is bordering on the ridiculous myself.
Regards
Paul
|
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
Hi RJ
Thanks to you too for an interesting posting.
As I said earlier, we are dealing with a puzzle with too many pieces missing to make enough sense of all this.
I freely admit that I am presuming innocence on Albert Johnson’s behalf, as well as most of the other players in the story, until proven guilty. I have no reason not to. The general consensus is that we are dealing with a straightforward retired family man, and not a practiced hoaxer, but then what do I know? I’ve never met him.
By “having got away with it…”, I mean that Albert had voluntarily and publicly offered the watch up for testing twice, had a solicitor vouching for his trustworthiness, and must have felt fairly safe when both reports concluded that the scratches were likely to be old.
Clearly he was in a position to sell the watch and recoup his expenses, plus a nice healthy profit, fairly safe from risk of a successful prosecution for fraud. He could have made a lot of money, but for whatever reason, he didn’t. It doesn’t add up at all. This elaborate hoax has not made Albert a penny, quite the reverse in fact.
As for his feigning ignorance of some of the watch scratches to PF, well who knows? He may have been genuinely mistaken. He might have feigned ignorance to see if something he knew as fact would be backed up by the tests. He may have not wanted to come across as a know all. I haven’t a clue really.
Both Mr Dangar and Mr Dundas’ statements concerning the watch bother me quite a bit. It’s like when you, and you alone spot a glaring anachronism in a BBC costume drama. The statements of these two gentlemen just don’t add up. To me at least.
Regards
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Hello all,
Lot's of things to respond to today! So we'll go quickly...
First off, let me say that I've got copies of Turgoose and Wild's reports, and have read through them extensively. They certainly make for interesting (if not definitive) reading. In many ways they raise more questions than they answer, but I think they give a good idea of what further tests might be profitable.
Paul,
"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."
I think that it's likely they were corroded in situ, but at this point I wouldn't rule it the other possibility. I also find it rather interesting that Wild was so impressed with the particle, whereas Turgoose who works at the Corrosion and Protection Centre wasn't as impressed. I'm not sure what to make of that.
"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?"
I agree completely with RJ here. I haven't see any details of what was tried, nor what the specific results are. (For example were they working with particles, or a corroded brass implement?)
"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?"
Wild refers to the watch surface as being contaminated by hydrocarbons, which he attributes to handling and exposure to the environment.
"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."
Er, I really hate to say it Paul, but the 1275 isn't a Casemakers mark. The "5" goes over the looped tail of the right side of the "J" in the same way that the "H 9/3" does the line on the left of the "J". Like the "H 9/3", the "1275" was made after the "I am Jack".
"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."
You're presuming a forgery for profit, which I wouldn't assume at this point. Some folks would just think it's cool to have Jack the Rippers watch as a conversation piece.
Caz,
"Perhaps you could put your concerns and questions directly to Wild and Turgoose at some point?"
I hope to do just that at some point. But I'm not sure if they'd be free to comment as the original work was commissioned by others? I'm not sure how that would work.
Best Regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
John Hacker wrote:
Er, I really hate to say it Paul, but the 1275 isn't a Casemakers mark. The "5" goes over the looped tail of the right side of the "J" in the same way that the "H 9/3" does the line on the left of the "J". Like the "H 9/3", the "1275" was made after the "I am Jack".
How interesting. This is according to Turgoose, presumably?
I thought the evidence Paul had found sounded pretty convincing.
Isn't there an alternative - Paul is right about the origin of this mark, but there's something wrong with the methodology that was used to determine the priority of the scratches?
Perhaps having seen the report you can judge the likelihood of this better than the rest of us.
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
Paul---Hi. You write about the Johnsons confidence in handing over the watch for testing. Yes. But don't forget that the Johnson's solicitor already took the watch to several labs and was told that dating scratches in metal was "inaccurate if not impossible." I can't rule out that commsense would have told a hoaxer that the risk was exceedingly low.
You rightly state that the Johnson not selling the watch "doesn't add up" if this were a forgery for profit venture. Agreed. But perhaps it doesn't add up because we don't have all the information?
Robert Smith wrote to Doreen Montgomery on January 20, 1994 (quoted in Ripper Diary pg. 79) "Pecuniary benefit doesn't come into it. Far from it. It may cost a lot to keep the watch accessible. I believe the watch is very important to "our mutual property", and we should think of ways to encourage the Johnsons not to sell it at too early a stage." (my emphasis)
The date of the letter is important. It is written at the very moment that Albert and Robbie Johnson are in negotiation with Robert E. Davis (the Texas collector) to sell the watch for $30,000-$40,000). What 'encouragement'--if any--was given to the Johnsons?
I know from information from Melvin Harris that Johnson at some point received £1000 from Smith's publishing house, and another £2000 from Crew. (Doreen Montgomery's agency). When? What was the agreement? Obviously, the Johnsons were profitting from the watch. Linder, Morris, and Skinner mention that in June 1994 "Robert Smith and Richard Nicholas, solicitor to the Johnson brothers, conclude an extension to the agreement allowing Smith Gryphon permission to reprint the pictures of the watch and Dr. Turgoose's report, ..." What was the agreement?? I don't know, and I'm only speculating, but considering that Smith had earlier written to Montgomery about "keeping the watch accessible" I'm wondering if some of the contractual agreements might touch upon the reasons Mr. Johnson didn't sell his watch to Robert E. Davis. RP |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 861
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
Guys,
Can I refer you, someone, anyone to Michael V Sheehans thread (by the way, welcome Michael). It may be in the wrong place, perhaps Stephen can sort it.
Heres a shortcut..
../4920/10146.html"../../clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Chris,
Yep. That was from Turgoose's report. I don't think there's too much of a chance that he got it wrong.
He's looking at the surface under extreme magnification and can see the upper scratches crossing and leaving marks in the trench of the lower scratches.
Best Regards,
John |
Paul Butler
Police Constable
Username: Paul
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
Hi John
Well to say I’m staggered at the report’s suggestion that the 1275 goes OVER the JTR scratches is to put it mildly. The implications of this will be very far reaching indeed.
When I posted about the casemaker’s mark I spoke to half a dozen colleagues first, and to be frank they made me a bit embarrassed that I hadn’t noticed it was a serial Number before! This is even more amazing seing as there is no other marking that could possibly be a casemaker’s mark, and yet we have another RS case that clearly has one, and in the sme place too!
Still, enough of that for a minute. If the “numbers” as Tim Dundas called them, go over the JTR marks, and Dundas says he saw them in 1992 when he repaired the watch, which he did, then the JTR scratches MUST have been made before the diary became common knowledge….!!!!!
This is going to take a bit of digesting.
Regards
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Actually, looking again at the photo, which Michael V. Sheehan has handily posted -
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4920&post=91217#POST91217 - isn't the casemaker's mark the number stamped at the bottom, not the 1275? Michael Sheehan reads that number as 1288 or 1266, which matches up with the 1286 Paul said was on the movement.
He makes a number of other interesting points. Looking at the photo again, I'd also ask just what is that thing that looks like a "N",between "J" and "Maybrick"?
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 260
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I fully agree. The diary is written in a perfectly non-specific manner. Although the gist leads to one conclusion, the text does not specifically state that conclusion (i.e., the 2nd Manchester trip; did it happen? Diary neither confirms nor disconfirms that trip, etc). This means no matter what evidence may turn up, the diary is hard to "pin down". Exactly what a forger would want, but hardly a concern for James Maybrick (since it's not that vauge!). Again, this isn't intended as "proof of forgery", just one more question that needs to be considered.
Also, the idea of switching between emotional "modes" quickly is not an unreasonable notion.
And, as I posted awhile back, the lack of the Manchester victim(s) on the watch doesn't definately rule out a connection to the diary. There are ways to explain it, and you've offered some suggestions that do just that. If the watch claimed Stride, let's say, and the diarist did not, then we would have something - a contradiction. But, not listing a victim could occur for many reasons (not satisfying, etc).
- Jeff |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
Paul,
"When I posted about the casemaker’s mark I spoke to half a dozen colleagues first, and to be frank they made me a bit embarrassed that I hadn’t noticed it was a serial Number before! This is even more amazing seing as there is no other marking that could possibly be a casemaker’s mark, and yet we have another RS case that clearly has one, and in the sme place too!"
It sounded like you had a pretty good case for them being just that, so I was a tad surprised to notice that when I reread the Turgoose report.
This afternoon I went back to Shirley's book and took another good look at the watch pictures.
The number 1286 is stamped at the bottom of the case, below the 18 carat mark. Which matches up with the number on the movement. (This is apparent in the photo in my copy of the Blake Ed paperback of Shirley's book. The 1998 printing.)
"Still, enough of that for a minute. If the 'numbers' as Tim Dundas called them, go over the JTR marks, and Dundas says he saw them in 1992 when he repaired the watch, which he did, then the JTR scratches MUST have been made before the diary became common knowledge….!!!!!"
Only if the "1275" were the numbers he was referring to. There's still the "1286", and the repair mark on the inner rim. I wonder if he could be located to confirm what numbers he saw because it isn't clear to me what he was talking about.
Best Regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Could I just put a couple of questions on record about the crossings of the "J" with the "H9 3" and "1275"?
(1) First, looking at the photo again, I'd never really been clear where the "Jack" was meant to be, but it seems that it's written "over" the winding hole, with the "J" to the left and the "k" to the right. Whether the "a" and "c" are visible I don't know - it looks as though the "c" should lie directly over the hole. Can we be sure this does read "I am Jack"? Certainly it's one of those things you can "see" when the idea has once been planted, but breaking it down into components (e.g. is that really an "m"?), is it really clear?
(2) From the descriptions posted of how the tail of the "J" (not visible in the photo) crosses those two other marks, we have something going "West" from the bottom of the "J", crossing the "9" of "H9 3", then turning "North", then "East" and crossing the downstroke of the "J", then presumably going beyond the "3" before turning "South" to cut down through the "5" of "1275".
My question is: is it clear that this oddly shaped scratch - presumably quite a bit fainter than the downstroke, which shows up clearly on the photo - is really a tail attached to the "J"? It couldn't just be an old scratch that's been joined on to it by the eye of faith, could it?
One other related point that confuses me is that what's been interpreted previously as the "forward slash" in "H9/3" seems now to be interpreted as part of the downstroke of the "J". But Turgoose, who is considering the relationship of these two, as quoted by Caroline Morris, refers to "H9/3", not "H9 3".
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Hi John
Having just been and had a look at Michael’s posting, (and invited him on over, as did Chris also), and that lovely clear photograph, I’m with you all the way on that one. 1286 is the casemakers number without a shadow of a doubt. It’s back to square one with 1275 then. I am only too pleased to concede that one. It had to be there somewhere.
The 1286 looks just like a few blobs in my book so it’s no wonder I never saw them.
“Only if the "1275" were the numbers he was referring to. There's still the "1286", and the repair mark on the inner rim. I wonder if he could be located to confirm what numbers he saw because it isn't clear to me what he was talking about.”
Agreed again John. (Blimey, this is habit forming.) BUT…(well there had to be one), the 1286 serial number is stamped into the metal and not scratched. Was Dundas referring to scratches? He did refer to “repair numbers” which are always scratched rather than stamped into the metal, so almost certainly he was referring to H 9 3 and 1275.
Now we’ve located 1286, and it’s rightful place in all of this, we really need to know exactly where this troublesome “inner rim” 20789 scratching is. It’s in a weird spot for a repair mark, but not impossible I suppose.
We must be very careful though, to not interpret these marks as dates too readily. It’s an easy trap to fall into as we’ve seen. Clearly 1275 isn’t a date. Its no longer possible as it cannot predate the Maybrick scratches unless James was a fortune teller. We need to keep a similar open mind concerning 20789.
It will be great if Michael comes and joins in too. I’m getting a bit fed up looking at pictures of the insides of Victorian watches trying to find a nice curly H. Maybe he can help?
Hello Monty.
Please do join in. We’ve got plenty of room for open minds here, and it’s all very civilised too.
Regards to all
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 854
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
You may have missed it, but Albert’s confidence that the watch would help the diary book to sell was conditional on the scratches being proved genuine.
I can’t see what on earth ‘doesn’t quite sit right’ with you about this. Anyone owning something that, if proved genuine, would become a priceless artefact, would hardly be in two minds about its potential worth to a publisher in terms of related book sales.
I explained to you in my email (responding to one of yours) about the permission fees that the Johnsons’ solicitor was able to negotiate for his clients on the back of the favourable watch reports and the offer from Texas. I can see nothing sinister about the idea that everyone concerned on this side of the pond appreciated the good sense in not waving goodbye to a potentially priceless artefact as it sailed across the Atlantic for what might have turned out to be a song.
And why share Melvin’s ‘uneasy’ feelings about Robbie, when you have the ability to think things out for yourself? We know that Robbie dismissed the diary as a fake, while insisting the watch was genuine. But what could he have possibly hoped to gain from seeking to undermine the diary’s status, if he knew the scratches had been made specifically to take advantage of the recent emergence of this document? This makes absolutely no sense, unless you think it was some kind of crazy double bluff that was bound to backfire. It strikes me that the only rational explanation is that Robbie could not have appreciated the fatal blow that would be delivered to his ‘real McCoy’ if everyone took his dismissal of the diary seriously - and therefore almost certainly did not engineer a 'bandwagon' hoax that depended for its very survival on the diary not being dismissed.
Hi John,
You can but try, regarding putting your questions directly to Wild or Turgoose. We did just that with AFI’s Dr. Diana Simpson, if you remember, for Inside Story. And although she didn’t go into anything like the detail I was hoping for, and in layman’s terms that I would like to have readily understood, at least she did respond. If you don’t try you don’t get. The difficulty is knowing what to prioritise, such as the inimitable Stanley Dangar’s own research and what have you. One can only do so much within the limits of time and expense, not to mention the experts' willingness to cooperate. If we tried to look into everyone’s efforts at solving the mystery of the watch and the diary, using a fine-toothed comb, in order to document and summarise it all for public consumption, we’d be talking about the public a hundred years from now. 
Hi Chris,
The N between J and Maybrick is part of the MN for Mary Nichols.
I am assuming Turgoose found these scratches crossed each other, and was able to conclude that the MN was scratched after the ‘signature’.
Sorry I didn’t make that clearer in previous posts.
Turgoose seems very clear about which scratches form the J of Jack. If he had not been sure where superficial scratches ended and letters and numbers began, I would hope he would have said so, and not concluded that the ‘I am Jack’ and ‘J Maybrick’ predated all other visible scratch marks where they crossed, including the superficial scratches he examined.
I did wonder if Turgoose put H 9/3 because he saw it like that under magnification, in addition to the downward stroke of the J, or whether he may have chosen a forward slash to indicate separate numbers rather than using a single space, since it looks more like H nine three in my clearest photo, rather than H ninety-three, or H 9/3.
Have a great weekend all. And Monty, do join us next week for more fascinating (and hopefully not useless) watch facts and plenty of fun and games.
We play cricket here – the bloody thing’s got us all stumped. Why should you escape?
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on March 12, 2004) |
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
RJ,
To answer your queries. I was certainly anxious that the authors of The Diary of Jack the Ripper should not be deprived of access to the watch around the publication period in 1993, but there was no take up from the recipients of the letter you quoted from, and therefore there was no discussion or agreement with Albert or Robbie Johnson on limiting in any way their selling the watch to whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted.
The Johnsons turned down the offer of $30,000 - $40,000 from Robert E Davis, because they were convinced, that they owned the genuine watch of Jack the Ripper, which in their view would be worth far more. Do you really think that they would have rejected so generous an offer, if they had known the watch had been faked, or if they had doubts over its authenticity? I imagine, it is because you can’t believe it, that you are looking to see if they had some alternative financial inducement. They didn’t.
No great mystery either over the £1000 and the £2000 paid to the Johnsons’ solicitors. As Ripper Diary correctly states, the agreements covering these sums were for permission fees. They were for the rights to quote from the Turgoose report and for the reproduction rights to their photographs of the watch, for use in the hardback and paperback editions of The Diary of Jack the Ripper. The deal represented good value for the authors of the book.
Chris Phillips
Normally the authors (Turgoose and Wild in this instance) would hold the copyright, but Shirley and Albert may have purchaesd the copyright as part of their commissions. Rather than get involved in a legal point, it is best to get the permissions of both the authors and commissioners to reproduce them in print or on the internet. I have proposed this course of action many times on the boards in respect of all the scientific reports, and am pleased to hear of some steps currently being taken in this direction with the two watch reports.
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Hi John and all.
Having had a day or two to digest the contents of Turgoose and Wild, it has certainly clarified a few things in my mind.
As you know, we can’t quote extensively from the reports as yet on here, so I won’t.
Turgoose confirms the information Caz has been able to give us over the past few weeks, and his comments in particular make for very interesting reading, particularly around the order of the scratches and polishings.
“I am Jack” and “J Maybrick” first, then or possibly at about the same time, the victims initials, (some but probably not all of which were done with a brass tool), then a significant polish which partly obliterated those scratchings.
Next the two “repair” marks, H 9 3 and 1275, done with two different tools again, (almost certainly not brass ones), then a load of superficial surface scratches and scuffs, all of which are more recent than the previously mentioned scratches. The superficial scratches bearing little or no evidence of being polished in any way.
The Maybrick marks sound like pretty old scratches to me!
I am astonished that the very telling “repair marks” haven’t been picked up on before, or have they?….!
Regards
Paul
P.S. John. How long did it take your vinegar to work on corroding a bit of brass? I’ve been trying a piece for two weeks now, and all I’ve got at the moment is a piece of vinegary brass! 
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 4:43 am: | |
Hi Paul,
Thanks for confirming for Chris et al that I wasn't making stuff up, or distorting and misinterpreting the words of the reports, when I tried to convey some of the information contained therein to the readers here (where have they all gone?).
I would imagine that most, if not all of those with previous access to the reports, were satisfied that neither Turgoose nor Wild had concluded that the scratches were likely to have been made in the preceding few weeks or months, and therefore didn't feel the need to delve that deeply into the individual scientific observations. Either that, or they did acknowledge that the H 9 3 and 1275 had been engraved later, and were consequently even happier to live with the common 'decades old' conclusion.
It would be another matter, I would think, if any of the staunch modern hoax theorists had been able to read through the entire reports before I finally got copies and devoured the order Turgoose gave for the marks. I can't imagine a modern hoax believer would not have scrutinised every syllable for supporting evidence.
So can we assume Melvin Harris, for example, never saw the full Turgoose report? I seem to recall him saying he had been in contact with either Wild or Turgoose or both at some point, and I'm sure he mentioned Wild's earlier draft and final version before Chris Phillips quoted from them again recently. I wonder if Melvin could have missed something as potentially important as this? Perhaps he never saw this part of Turgoose's report. If he did, it appears he never offered an explanation.
In your opinion, Paul, could a hoaxer have seen the Maybrick diary news in the local papers in late April 1993, thought up his hoax, put the scratches in the watch and artificially aged them, engineered the 'discovery', allowing one of Albert's workmates to make the connection with the recent news story, and then got the watch to Robert Smith by the first week in June, happy for it to be handed over for forensic testing - which happened in the August, when Turgoose examined it?
Many thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
Thanks for confirming for Chris et al that I wasn't making stuff up, or distorting and misinterpreting the words of the reports, when I tried to convey some of the information contained therein to the readers here (where have they all gone?).
--- Sigh! ---
Just for the record, of course I have made no such accusation. I do think that the paragraph above gives the impression that I did, and to that extent is misleading. I do wish you'd stop playing these games.
And Paul's report of the report, of course, raises a new set of questions for those who believe the scratches to be old.
“I am Jack” and “J Maybrick” first, then or possibly at about the same time, the victims initials, (some but probably not all of which were done with a brass tool), then a significant polish which partly obliterated those scratchings.
Next the two “repair” marks, H 9 3 and 1275, done with two different tools again, (almost certainly not brass ones), then a load of superficial surface scratches and scuffs, all of which are more recent than the previously mentioned scratches. The superficial scratches bearing little or no evidence of being polished in any way.
So Turgoose has a "significant polish" before the H 9 3 and 1275 marks, then the "load of superficial surface scratches and scuffs", and after that "no evidence of being polished in any way".
But we know Murphy says he polished the watch before selling it, in an effort to remove "scratches". Where does that fit into Turgoose's picture?
And we are left with the perennial question of how all these superficial scratches and scuffs got onto the internal surface of the watch, if they weren't attempts to "age" the surface artififically. And if they got there after Murphy's polishing, which the summary above seems to suggest, what would that lead us to think?
Chris Phillips
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 365
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 7:32 am: | |
Excellent point regarding information that we know beyond question (the polishing of the watch) that contradicts Turgoose (no polishings after).
 |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 8:09 am: | |
Ally wrote:
Excellent point regarding information that we know beyond question (the polishing of the watch) that contradicts Turgoose (no polishings after).
Of course, the two can be reconciled if the Maybrick scratches, the "H 9 3" and the "1275" were all made after the watch passed out of Murphy's hands ...
But I really feel the detailed debate of these issues would be better left until all the information is in the public domain. Excerpts of the reports have been made public at various times - in Shirley Harrison's book, by Melvin Harris on the old boards, by Caroline Morris previously, and now by John Hacker and Paul Butler.
Each revelation has underlined the fact that previous judgments based on incomplete information were inadequate. I've no reason to think it will be any different when the rest of the data become public.
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.
|
|
|
|
