|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 1:07 pm: |       |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
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.
Maybe it's just worth clarifying this.
As I said before, extracts from Wild's report were quoted by Melvin Harris on the old boards on 4 February 2001. The post is available on the Casebook CD. It says nothing about Turgoose. From that post, there's no reason to suggest that Harris saw Turgoose's report, failed to spot anything, or failed to offer an explanation of something he should have.
Perhaps it's more pertinent to ask why Shirley Harrison would have failed to quote this evidence, if it's as conclusive as is now being suggested. Certainly her account doesn't suggest she found Turgoose's evidence as conclusive as Wild's later evidence about the brass silvers.
Maybe the reason is that David Thompson, the superintendent of the watch and clock department of the British Museum, had told her he was "puzzled" about the H 9 3 and 1275, and thought they could have been made with the same implement as the other scratches, though they could have been repair marks.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 2:00 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
What’s all the sighing about? It’s hardly my fault if you have forgotten all your little digs about waiting for the reports to be published because you have only been getting Caz’s version and interpretation. They are all there in your previous posts, which I wouldn’t have minded at all (I said repeatedly that I might have got it wrong accidentally), except that not a single concession comes my way when both John and Paul confirm the details I gave you.
Turgoose examined the marks and determined that different tools had been used for the H 9 3 and 1275 than those used for the ripper scratches. Was Thompson able to examine them even more closely?
While we wait for the reports to be published, you might like to address the same question I put to Paul, and comment on the logistics of Robbie and/or Albert planning and executing this hoax between late April and the end of May 1993, and handing it over for forensic testing by the August.
Love,
Caz
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 19
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Hi Chris and All.
I dunno Chris, but sometimes it seems to me as though you are only seeing what you want to see.
I said, and I quote….”The superficial scratches bearing little or no evidence of being polished in any way.”
“Little or no evidence…” allows for Murphy’s possible polishing with rouge in 1992. I don’t think I need say more.
Honestly, if Caz or myself, or John H, (who believes in the modern hoax idea), start deliberately misquoting from the reports we’re going to look pretty stupid when they’re published aren’t we?
I can’t use the exact words in full as you know, but from looking at where the scratches overlay each other it is clear that “J Maybrick” was first, immediately followed by “I am Jack.” Which crosses it at one point. These two were quite possibly done at the same sitting.
The victim’s initials followed that.
The repair marks came next, and at some stage a polishing so significant that the J of “Jack” was polished out completely in places. To be fair, this polishing may have been before or after the repair marks, but almost certainly after as they are nothing like as worn away, and are right next to the J. The repair marks are made by two different tools, neither of which made the Maybrick marks.
Whether the repair marks pre or post date the polishing that obliterated the J is not relevant to the conclusions being drawn anyway, but I mention it to be totally complete.
After this polishing, or maybe polishings, there are superficial surface marks, all of which post date the Maybrick marks and the repair marks.
These superficial marks have sharp edges and show “little smoothing”, i.e. a light polish with rouge by the Murphy’s is fine.
All of the above is directly and absolutely supported by Dr. Turgoose’s report. None of it is new to these boards, and is entirely consistent with the scratches being tens of years old as well as fully supporting the known facts about the recent life of the watch.
I appreciate that these facts have come out piecemeal over the last few weeks, and so a few points may have been lost by some. It is abundantly clear however why Dr. Turgoose was confident enough to say that the scratches dated back tens of years and quite possibly more.
He seems to have been mostly impressed by the superficial surface marks, and their appearance as could only be determined by the SEM, (not even a conventional microscope), and the extreme unlikelihood of a hoaxer being able to put them there without the same level of sophisticated equipment and expertise.
There is not the remotest chance that these scratches are the result of a circa 1993 hoax I’m afraid.
The absolute gilding on the lily comes almost unintentionally from Dr. Wild though. If I have time later, I’ll try and put another posting together.
Regards
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
What’s all the sighing about? It’s hardly my fault if you have forgotten all your little digs about waiting for the reports to be published because you have only been getting Caz’s version and interpretation.
This is getting sillier and sillier, and I'm just not going to get drawn into these bulletin board games. You know perfectly well that I never accused you of making stuff up, or distorting and misinterpreting the words of the reports, or any such thing. It's no use pretending that I did. Why not simply stick to discussing the facts?
Turgoose examined the marks and determined that different tools had been used for the H 9 3 and 1275 than those used for the ripper scratches. Was Thompson able to examine them even more closely?
I've no idea, and the question is naturally rather meaningless without the details of Turgoose's examination.
While we wait for the reports to be published, you might like to address the same question I put to Paul, and comment on the logistics of Robbie and/or Albert planning and executing this hoax between late April and the end of May 1993, and handing it over for forensic testing by the August.
This is precisely the sort of thing that is a waste of time to comment on, without knowing what the report says.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
Paul Butler
I'm not suggesting you are deliberately misquoting anything. To be honest, I'm getting rather tired and bored of people claiming this, when I've said no such thing.
The point is that it is very difficult to get an accurate idea of what's in the reports from the summaries that people are posting.
Your posts today are a case in point.
In the earlier one:
“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 natural reading of that is that the polishing came before what you call the repair marks.
But now you say:
To be fair, this polishing may have been before or after the repair marks, but almost certainly after as they are nothing like as worn away, and are right next to the J.
I'm not at all suggesting the confusion was deliberate, but to my mind it's pointless discussing the information in detail on the basis of summaries like this.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 6:21 pm: | |
Hi Chris
O.K. Perhaps you’re really not following this and I’m being unfair to you.
The vital fact here is that there has been a very heavy polish on this watch case. If you can come up with a date for that polish then you will have a latest possible date for the Maybrick scratches, as that very polish partially obliterates the J of the word Jack.
Additionally, the superficial surface scratches that post date everything else would need considerable expertise and sophisticated equipment to hoax according to Dr. Turgoose.
The repair marks are later than the Maybrick marks as they go over the top of them.
These are three separate issues, and it is the first that is the most important. The other two just go to confirm further what is quite clear from the first.
Dr. Wild says, and I quote, “The watch surface was heavily contaminated with hydrocarbons which were present as a result of prolonged exposure to the environment and handling.” (My emphasis).
This watch surface would have had to have been polished so heavily in 1993 to reach the very bottom of the J so as to completely obliterate it in places, that a new, clean surface to the gold would have been exposed.
Dr. Wild examined the watch and found this heavy contamination of hydrocarbons on 31st January 1994. The absolute longest period of time that these hydrocarbons had to heavily contaminate the gold surface was therefore 8 months at the outside, (and that’s pushing it) . Dr. Wild doesn’t define prolonged, but it is clear that he means a period of time rather longer than 8 months!
There are no ifs buts or maybes about Dr. Wild’s findings. He states it as fact.
This is without taking into account Dr.Wild’s forensic examination of the scratches and the “Silver enrichment” experiments which, yet again, confirm the scratches as old.
The thing is Chris, both Turgoose and Wild were asked to try and date the scratches. Neither were asked, “Could this have been faked in 1993.” Their findings now put paid to that possibility with complete ease, but nobody really checked it out until now.
A 1993 hoax is a complete impossibility, and we need to seriously start looking for other explanations.
Regards
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 7:20 pm: | |
Paul Butler wrote:
A 1993 hoax is a complete impossibility
If you're asking me to take your word for that, I'm afraid I'm unwilling to do so. I'd prefer to see what Turgoose and Wild say, and make up my own mind.
I'm afraid you'll find most people will share that opinion. They will not be willing to accept that the scratches are old, with all that implies about the watch and the diary, without seeing the evidence for themselves.
However, I'm quite happy to wait for the full reports to be made public before commenting further.
One thing, though. I do hope that both Dr Wild's reports are made public. In interpreting Wild's report, it's worth bearing in mind his original judgment on the silver enrichment evidence. So far from "confirm[ing] the scratches as old", his original draft said "little can be said about the age of the scratches from this".
The truth is rarely pure and never simple.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 21
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Ok Chris, that's fine by me.
Yes, the pure and simple facts do make it a bit awkward don't they?
I'd love to know who these "most people" are though, seeing as most people still seem to think Maybrick was JTR if the Casebook poll has anything to do with it!
Regards and Goodnight,
Paul
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 22
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
Hi Caz,
“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?”
Sorry, I wasn’t ignoring you. You put this question the other day and it’s now about half a mile back behind some lengthy but real tantalising stuff.
Well the straight answer of course is that this would have been well nigh impossible.
In addition to the things you mention, you mustn’t forget the repair marks, the ones later than the Maybrick scratches. Add these into the story and it’s a lot harder still.
Our hoaxer had to think up the brilliant idea of putting them there in the first place, which sort of implies some prior knowledge of the watch and clock trade. He then had to research them well enough to make sure his fake marks looked authentic and fooled each and every watchmaker that saw them. Of course his research must have been achieved by looking at dozens of real examples of old Gold pocket watches as there are no books, no websites that will help.
He had four or five weeks in which to plan and execute this extremely elaborate hoax, from first hearing about the Maybrick diary, to showing it to Robert Smith. Even without the forensic evidence, which is now about as conclusive as it gets, the answer to your question has got to be an emphatic no. Impossible.
Regards
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 888
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
We are asked to believe our watch hoaxer was smart enough to do all this, then insisted the diary was a fake! He might as well have flushed the watch down the lavatory at the same time. 
Of course, we are also asked to believe the hoaxer deliberately took his own brother for a ride, also fooling his sister-in-law, his best friend and his brother's workmates.
Either that, or it's one great scouser conspiracy (sorry - two great scouser conspiracies, I was forgetting the diary that Mike wrote with the help of up to four others at the last count), and they were all happy to see the Johnson brothers wave a small fortune goodbye when they turned down the offer from Texas.
And the diary agnostics used to be accused of jumping through flaming hoops with their reasoning!
Hi Chris,
Just so I can get this straight in my mind, what scratches do you think the Murphys may have been trying to polish out with their gentle rouge job in 1992? And could they have succeeded in making the surface so scratch free that a hoaxer's subsequent work in 1993, starting with 'J Maybrick' and 'I am Jack', would appear under Turgoose's examination to be the earliest observable marks?
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 661
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
Hi, Caz et al.:
The Diary is a fake alright. It fails the basic tests for a document to be genuine:
Is it written in Maybrick's handwriting? No.
Does it have a provenance to trace it to Maybrick? No.
It appears to me that the Diary is being eased back into the public arena as a possible genuine document by the back door on the basis of the Maybrick watch apparently having passed the test that might show the scratches in the watch to be old. Hmmmm....
Scientific tests can be wrong and I do think the testers of the watch were wrong to conclude the scratches are old.
To me both the watch and the diary are faked up artifacts. James Maybrick was not Jack. He's part of the long list of latterday hyped-up suspects who were not Jack.
Best regards
Chris |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 24
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
“Scientific tests can be wrong and I do think the testers of the watch were wrong to conclude the scratches are old.”
One simple question. Why? Why do you know better?
The Maybrick scratches are too old to be part of a 1993 hoax due to simple and unadulterated logic. The tests just happen to bear this out.
I’m sorry if I sound a bit narked, but that’s because I am.
If people are prepared to spend a lot of time researching these things properly, and then explaining themselves and their reasoning fully, it simply won’t do to come along and say, “your’e all wrong.”
So once again….Why?
Regards
Paul
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
Hi, Paul
My main object of interest is the Diary which as I mentioned fails the basic tests for being the genuine article. I don't have much interest in the watch although some, e.g., Caroline Morris, appear to seem to think it is important. To me it's just a crude fake. I have to admit though that it is my inclination to think that the scientists have got it wrong.
This is not, after all, DNA testing, testing that supposedly is infallible and that, say, has a one in a million chance of proving a single individual did a crime. It is another type of test, and my belief is that the test has given the wrong date.
This is my opinion. As such, it might not be sufficient for you, Paul, but there it is.
Best regards
Chris George |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 25
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Well I’m not suggesting you aren’t entitled to an opinion of your own. We all are.
The watch is the watch, and the diary is the diary. But to say they are both fakes is as good as saying the Turin shroud is a fake. Nobody really expected that to prove a genuine first century relic, but it didn’t stop a lot of interested people wanting to find out its true origins.
Yes, Caz is interested in the watch, so am I, so are a lot of people who won’t discuss it here for reasons that are abundantly clear to me.
Neither the diary nor the watch need to be eased back to the public. They’re still very much with us, and will remain so until their true origins have been established.
The watch can’t be part of a 1993 hoax. That’s an impossibility. It doesn’t make it genuinely by Maybrick, and to the best of my knowledge nobody is saying that. If you think it’s a “crude fake”, then you haven’t been following things here too well.
Neither artifact is going to go away until we get the answers, and we won’t get them by burying our heads in the sand.
Regards
Paul
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:06 pm: | |
Hi Paul
I am glad you agree that we are both entitled to our opinion.
Let me say this. Sure the watch could be part of a 1993 hoax if the scientific findings are wrong. Possibly new or better tests need to be done on the watch.
Best regards
Chris |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 1:14 am: | |
Dear Robert Smith---Many thanks for your response of March 12th. "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?"
Hmm. Interesting question, maybe, but perhaps a moot point in regards to Robbie Johnson? For, as a matter of fact, a very short time later he did sell his "share" of the watch--- for £15,000 (Investor currently unknown) Why exactly Robbie got a 'share' is beyond me. As I understand it, the watch was Albert's, and Robbie was in one of Her Majesty's Instituitons at the time of its purchase. Yet, oddly, he seems to be the one who ends up with the money. Indeed, as reported by Linder, Morris, and Skinner, Albert himself is said to be in the red.
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 28
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
Hi Chris
Of course you are.
The only difference is that I backed mine up with facts.
Quite how new tests will change the order in which the scratches were made is beyond me. Dr. Turgoose established this by simple observation.
Perhaps he did it with his eyes closed then?...
Regards
Paul |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 371
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
A dead man is pulled from the river. He is blue, there are no stab marks, bullet holes or other visible wounds. One might make the deduction through simple observation that he had drowned. But perform some tests and lookie..you find no water in his lungs and in fact, he died of a heart attack.
Observation without testing is worthless whether your eyes are open or closed.
 |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Hi, Paul, Ally, Chris, Caz etc
I understand that the new (March 2004) issue of Ripperologist is due to contain the vertabim Wild and Turgoose reports on the Maybrick watch so we can read them for ourselves without having the wording filtered through anyone else's interpretation of them. I have not read them myself. They should make for interesting reading.
Best regards
Chris George
North American Editor,
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 29
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Hi Chris
Well thank goodnes for that! Perhaps it might put paid to all the silliness.
Wishful thinking on my part I expect. I was forgetting that unless they confirm the modern circa 1993 hoax theory, which you will soon discover they don’t by a long chalk, then both authors are clearly wrong…....
Ally
I haven’t a clue what you’re on about.
Regards
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 891
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 9:31 am: | |
Two lines drawn in sand with a finger cross each other.
Wouldn't even the dullest beach bum be able to tell which was drawn first?
Answers on a saucy postcard.
As Paul says, how would new watch tests help?
No one claims to be able to date scratches made in a gold surface, whatever tests are done.
So what new tests could or should be done to save the 1993 hoax theory from drowning? It's coming up for the third time and I'm scratching my head here to see how much longer it can be made to float.
Love,
Caz |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 892
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
Hi Chris G,
Nice to see you posting again.
And thanks for giving everyone your latest hot news about the content of the March Rip.
Glad to see someone with their finger so firmly on the pulse. 
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 666
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Hi, Caz
I'll be round to take your pulse shortly. 
All my best
Chris |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 372
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Two lines are drawn in the sand. It is immediately possible to tell which was drawn over the other because of the edging formed by the second line when going over the first. But that edging is just loose bits of sand that can be cleaned away or slip away over time to make it impossible to tell a month later which was drawn over which.
Paul,
Then you seriously need to work on your logic and comparison skills.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Dear Boss
In our particularly case didn't the beach bum use the word "apparently."? Unsusual word for a scientific abstract, maybe. "Apparently" the "H" was written over the top of the 'horizontal line'..whatever that is. Sounds like the Beach bum allowed himself some wriggling room to me. So no, I'd say it would be bloody difficult to tell which line was drawn over which line in the sand (and we're talking about metal), particularly when the edges have been battered by an unexplained wind and rain on a normally sunny and windless beach.
And I'm having a difficult time visualizing this unknown jeweler circa 1900-and-something who supposedly came along and studpidly scratched his jeweler's mark right over the top of the most sensational confession in Liverpool's criminal history. So carefully he engraves his little numbers, while the name Maybrick is staring him in the face! No, can't see it. Sounds like your coddin' me, old Boss.
A more reasonable theory might be that someone wanted £15,000 for a time-share in sunny Spain. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
