|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 43
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:23 am: |       |
Hello Chris
“I'm afraid it makes very little sense, and I wonder quite what is in people's minds when they present these reports as either "new" or "clear" evidence that the scratches are older than 1988.”
I said the scratches were older than 1993 not 1988. They can’t possibly date later than early 1993 for reasons I have quite clearly given. Who said anything about 1988?
“The best sense I can make of what I've read about the silver enrichment experiments is that Wild initially expected to find greater enrichment on the surface than in the scratches, and hoped to be able to estimate their age from this. This despite the fact that he knew nothing whatsoever about the time course of the silver enrichment process, according to Paul.”
No. The silver enrichment test is based on the fact that the depth of enrichment varies according to the age of the gold surface. It gets deeper as it gets older due to exposure to the atmosphere. Dr. Wilds comment is that with other datable samples of gold, he could date the scratches with some degree of success. As it is he draws No conclusions whatsoever from the silver enrichment tests, other than that the scratches aren’t recent.
Dr. Wild’s assessment as to the age of the scratches going back tens of years is based upon the brass particle found.
In any case, the fact still remains that Dundas saw the repair numbers in 1992, and Murphy tried to polish out some other scratches in 1992 also, so no hoax was perpetrated in 1993 following the revelation of the diary in the papers in 1993. It’s a complete impossibility.
Just coincidentally, all the tests bear this out too. Lucky that!
Regards
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:39 am: | |
Excellent, Paul.
It's good to know that precisely what Dundas saw and Murphy did "still remain" as "facts."
That should save us a lot of time.
And since all the tests bear out the fact that no one could have possibly forged this watch after the diary, we shouldn't be here discussing this much longer, as far as I can see. It's a done deal. Both the watch and the diary must be authentic.
Still, to be fair to history and all, I guess we should probably wait to announce the truth as the final and proven thing we know it is until everyone can see the results of these tests, huh? I mean, that seems like the sensitive thing to do. We don't want to hurt the feelings of those poor unfortunates who haven't been allowed to see this irrefutable and conclusive data. But soon....
Looking forward to that day,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Yes.
I do hope that those reports are still going to be published - despite reported problems with getting permission to do so - because we're still in the position that every time they're referred to here, they seem to say something different!
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
Paul
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, I think I'll move towards John's style.
I've (several times) questioned the logic of the deductions from the silver enrichment measurements. No one has answered my questions, so I take it that everyone agrees that no conclusions can be drawn from these measurements (whatever they were).
I've (several times) questioned how the scratch, said (apparently) by Turgoose to underlie the other marks, can be connected with the "J" of "Jack" (or should that be "J...k"?). No one has answered my questions, so I take it that everyone agrees that it's just a scratch, and that Turgoose's observations can't tell us anything about the age of the "Maybrick scratches".
I'll assume everyone agrees about that, unless anyone cares to address the questions I raised. Hope that's OK.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 939
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
Hi RJ,
You can’t have it both ways – do you think the diary ink looks fresh today because it is fresh, or do you think it had already begun to bronze by the time Baxendale examined it and has been continuing the process ever since? Again, if the diary was written in the late 1980s/early 1990s, do you have any idea how long the ink should continue bronzing? How do you know there has been any bronzing, ongoing or stabilised, except for the ‘one or two places’ where Voller pointed out some ‘very slight’ and ‘barely visible’ bronzing that could ‘just be seen’ when ‘tilted to the light’?
Isn’t it at least possible that Baxendale missed this, especially if Voller’s barely visible bronzing may be confined to the odd page here and there?
‘I have a difficult time visualizing that someone staring at the watch under magnification cannot see the scratches.’
Precisely my point, RJ. Yet Turgoose and Wild did just that when they failed to see any scratches beneath the ripper marks – ie the scratches that Murphy claimed he had tried and failed to polish out in 1992. So are you saying Murphy lied? Or are you saying a hoaxer in 1993 succeeded in polishing out every last trace of these scratches before putting in the ripper marks? Or are you saying that despite the difficult time you have visualising it, Turgoose must have failed to see the scratches Murphy saw? Just trying to work out where your reasoning is taking you here.
Of course, it’s always sensible to get a second expert opinion, whether the first looks like potentially good news or bad, or utterly inconclusive. I certainly don’t see why it would be anything other than good practice to have commissioned Wild’s test at some point before publication of a book that proposes to include the watch evidence – even more so when some Texan guy has just offered a great deal of money to buy the property outright. Could be a sign of Albert offering so many hours’ access to Wild, according to his limited funds, in the hope of getting two promising reports to shove under Two-Gun Tex’s gullible nose, before going on to stitch him up with a known fake in the absence of a better offer.
But the last part never happened, did it, despite the first part happening and no better offer coming along? So it may just be that Albert took good advice and tried to do the right thing, as far as he was able, to confirm his own growing belief, supported by Turgoose, that the scratches could indeed date from the ripper’s time.
It might just be worth reminding the remaining posters at this point that John Hacker has copies of both reports and can therefore confirm (or deny, as the case may be) everything Paul and I have already quoted from them, and John Hacker cannot surely be accused of being biased towards the scratches being old.
Hi Chris,
The reason I am no longer addressing any of your questions is not because I agree with you about the horizontal line Turgoose reported as being part of the letter J for Jack being ‘just a scratch’, or about anything else for that matter.
It’s simply because over on a related thread I asked you to email me with any further questions if you have a serious interest in hearing and considering my answers. Since I haven’t received any emails from you at all, your conclusion that I must now be ‘agreeing’ with anything you say on the Maybrick boards is, by definition, completely invalid and disingenuous to say the least – unless you emailed me before yesterday at 1.22 pm your time, and it just hasn’t reached my inbox yet.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
So there, Chris.
All of Caz's questions about Wild and Turgoose and Murphy, etc. lead me to believe that Paul Butler might have been a bit mistaken when he said that there are simply "facts" which remain. They might remain around here, but not as facts. More often, it seems, they manifest themselves as disagreements over what the facts are and are not and what they mean. And since the reports remain in the hands of a select number of people and since, as RJ points out, we have directly conflicting stories and interpretations and "one set of 'evidence' has to be bogus," and since one scenario has someone looking right at the engraved confession of Jack the Ripper and either not noticing or not remembering it, and since even Paul feels compelled to reply over and over again to RJ and Chris, my suspicion is that the amount of actual, established "facts" around here remains, like the access the scientists were given to this material, rather limited.
And, since I'm still pimping for authenticity, that's exactly how I hope things stay. It's my best chance, I suspect.
Keepin' cool,
--John  |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Caz
Maybe I should just confirm that I don't want to engage in a discussion of these issues by private email. Why should I? Isn't that what these boards are for?
The reason I ask these questions is because I'm interested in the answers. Although if people can't or won't give any answers, that's useful information too.
I assume you can see, though, that the question about the tail of the "J" is highly relevant to the arguments you're now making about the scratches Murphy said he was trying to polish out...
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 44
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi John
All I can say is that I’m looking forward to that day immensely. There’s plenty of good stuff to come, including some nice little pictures of scratches, all close up and crossing each other. Excellent and edifying stuff.
Hi Chris
Isn’t my last post quite clear enough?
“Dr. Wilds comment is that with other datable samples of gold, he could date the scratches with some degree of success. As it is he draws No conclusions whatsoever from the silver enrichment tests, other than that the scratches aren’t recent.”
“Dr. Wild’s assessment as to the age of the scratches going back tens of years is based upon the brass particle found.”
Theres a smashing picture of the brass particle too. The exact width of the scratch in which its embedded, and just where the scratch veers off slightly to the right, nicely caught in the bend where it should be. The scratch even tails off a little on the other side of the scratch, looking for all the world like a pen nib just broke a tip. Damned clever these Liverpudlians!
Can’t wait for the new style either..!
Bye for now
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 941
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Thanks for confirming you have no serious interest in hearing any answers from me. If you did, you would be as eager to get them via email (and then post them to the boards if you think anyone else might be interested) as you claim to be eager to hear them from me directly on the boards. I just don't believe enough people need telling again about the watch report details at this stage to warrant wasting any more public space or boring readers to death by repeating stuff because you don't see the implications.
If you change your mind, feel free to email me anytime.
Love,
Caz |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
Caz
More games. Sorry, but I'm not playing.
One of us is trying to discuss the facts. The other is transparently trying to avoid doing so. No doubt people can draw their own conclusions.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
Paul
It's not so much that your statement isn't clear, but that it's yet another attempt to summarise what Wild says without quoting him directly.
The problem is that it's very difficult to evaluate a scientific report without looking at the precise words used, particularly if the summary has been made by a non-scientist.
That's why I think it would be better for us all to abstain from discussing, or drawing conclusions from, the scientific evidence, until the reports have been published.
I understand that those who believe the reports vindicate their view of the scratches are quite excited by them, and want to rush around telling people. But that doesn't remove the problem of whether we are really getting an accurate picture of what was said.
Your latest summary is another case in point. You say:
As it is he draws No conclusions whatsoever from the silver enrichment tests, other than that the scratches aren’t recent
Now we do actually have some verbatim quotations from Wild on this.
His original report says about the silver enrichment experiments:
little can be said about the age of the scratches from this
His final report says:
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. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years.
My interpretation of this, which hasn't been altered by anything that's been posted here, is that Wild in early 1994 concluded from his measurements that the scratches predated the most recent polishing, which he had been told was 6-10 years before. But:
(1) Murphy said he had tried to polish out some scratches in 1992, and
(2) I've asked several times how Wild could logically deduce anything from the measurements about when the scratches were made, and no one has been able to explain.
On this basis, your summary, though I'm sure it honestly represents your own "take" on Wild's report, is not one that will be accepted by a critical and unbiased observer.
If the situation is similar for the other findings of the reports, where we haven't yet had the advantage of seeing what Turgoose and Wild actually said - only the interpretations of Paul and Caz - then it's certainly premature to trumpet this "new evidence" or "new interpretation" as some sort of Maybrickian breakthrough.
Chris
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 460
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Caz,
People are free at anytime not to read any thread that bores them. Forcing Chris to email you to get answers to his questions and refusing to answer them if he doesn't, does seem rather like avoiding the situation.
I for one would like to see the "tin empty" conversation fully debated and explored in public and in an open venue where everyone can fully question and participate and not see it shunted off to the privacy of emails.
 |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 7:20 am: | |
First the "match box" problem and now the scratches...
I'm reminded of those brave knights trying to do battle against the killer rabbit, who begin by yelling "charge" but end up looking around and, seeing their numbers seriously depleted, change the battle cry to "run away, run away...."
"That rabbit's dynamite."
"Would it help to confuse it if we run away more?"
Still waiting for the arrival of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch,
--John (behind the bunny)
PS: And I'm sure we're being told the truth and that the reports will confirm the only possible conclusion -- that the watch must be genuine.
Won't they?
(Message edited by omlor on March 30, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Don’t play then.
I already stopped being played with when your rules became patently absurd. I don't know whether you made them up all by yourself or let someone else dictate them to you. But I simply don’t believe you have enough interested, intelligent spectators to warrant using someone else’s pitch for your brand of sport.
Anyone who wants to ‘fully question and participate’ with you and Ally about anything, be it 'tin empty' or the watch scratches, can and will do so. All the information that would currently be mine to offer you has been offered, and you were free to consider it and reject it, but you won't bite the hand that offered it. I need it for more important functions. And since I have no beliefs to offer you regarding the age of the watch scratches or diary, and you have already been handed yours on a plate, I'll leave you to it.
You certainly don’t need me, if you ever did. Easter is coming up shortly, and as hubby is taking a fortnight off work, I’m sure everyone else can spare me for a while too. He is after all fully entitled to have his wife all to himself to play with. I'm busy digging out the flying goggles and the English mustard.
Enjoy your game and happy talking!
Love,
Caz
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 465
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Interesting, Caz. I find it very interesting that for YEARS you have rattled on endlessly about the Diary, no point was too minor or small to be made over and over and over.
Now that you have been asked some tough questions, you are heading for the hills and claiming not enough "intelligent spectators" to continue posting. When has that ever stopped you? You've barely ventured off the Diary threads for years and now you are popping up everywhere but there. You haven't even stepped foot on the Kane handwriting thread to venture an opinion or a guess or make a claim one way or the other. This is the information that you were willing to do anything to get a few years ago, and now you are just going to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist?
You claim "game playing" because Chris doesn't want to play by your rules. You've been asked some very simple questions, why the full retreat?
Kisses,
Ally
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 950
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
I wrote the following to Chris on 26 March:
I have no definitive answers to offer you, no claims I want to make…no beliefs to push.
…I have no answers (as I myself have conceded a thousand times before), and you need no reassurances about your own conclusions…and you have no further need of my words or my time.
No point in even more repetition on the Maybrick threads, surely? I’ve heard it takes about five times on average for something to sink in, but my hubby needs me more than you do right now, so I hope you get it in two.
If I had to repeat it more than five times I’d assume no one was ever going to get it or wanted to know anymore.
I’ve asked many questions before the latest to me, and never got a sniff of a reply I could work with. But I have learned to give up asking some of them eventually, assuming I must either have missed the answer or am not likely to get one.
Easter is approaching. I'll be back.
Love,
Caz
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 468
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
John,
Dammit! All day !!! This--"Three is the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. FOUR thou shall NOT count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. FIVE IS RIGHT OUT."
Running endlessly through my head. I will be at USF soon and the payback will be immense. Dead bunnies in the mailbox even.
Caz,
Ah. I see. So it's bad to be hounded endlessly over what you considered asked and answered whether it is to the satisfaction of the askers or not. Glad we have finally cleared that up.
Ta-ta,
Ally
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Ally,
Believe it or not, I tried to load that very sound file with my message, but it was too big. Good thing, too. Or you'd be hearing it in your sleep.
If your schedule allows, we can certainly tilt back pints of Guinness to Brother Maynard and his sacred relics.
And Caz is right. How many times, after all, does she have to say that she can't answer Chris's questions?
Of course, no one else can apparently, so the old forgery idea now seems to have gone the way of the Black Knight, its arms and legs removed and its torso pathetically threatening only to bleed on us.
Off to change his armor,
--John (who knows his name, his quest, and his favorite color) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 7:12 am: | |
Hi Ally,
‘Hounded endlessly’, eh?
So I’m bad because you think I did this to Melvin (who gave us very satisfactory answers in the end, which appear in our book), yet you slavishly try to copy my bad behaviour?
You don’t half pick some strange role models.
Hi All,
Yes, I can categorically state for the record that Caz – at this moment in time – can offer no answers regarding where, how or when the author of the diary got his/her information, whether it be the empty matchbox or anything else.
It amazes me that anyone would seriously look to Caz for the answers, as if I could be called any sort of authority on the matter, let alone the sole authority.
I can only protest my innocence here and now and keep my fingers tightly crossed: I am not the author of the diary.
I am not telepathic. I am not psychic.
I am none of these things. If you wanted Superwoman you have been looking in the wrong place. If you wanted the devil in disguise, you exposed her a very long time ago. It's old news and no one's buying it, if they ever did.
Love,
Caz
PS And it’s not a flesh wound by the way – your arm’s off. Albert’s just confirmed it for me. Hot cross bunnies anyone?
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 7:28 am: | |
Caz,
You really didn't need to say it again. As I implied, it was apparent.
But thanks for the confirmation.
And, as we can see around here lately, you're not alone -- no one can explain these things, as the expert who has been cited on these matters concerning the diary must have known. And so the old forgery idea turns out to be a complete non-starter and we're back to a simple choice -- authentic or modern.
Perhaps, by the time you return, the former will have won the day and there'll be no more need for this site. Or at least it'll be renamed: "Casebook: James Maybrick."
Dreaming of that day and my last laugh,
--John (who'll be here waiting for July 14) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 3:16 am: | |
I think it’s only fair to state the scratches are of modern date - shameful of anyone who denies the evidence of their own eyes. So I’ll mock Albert’s dodgy ticker (and elsewhere Gerard’s dodgy ticker), and everyone can sit and snicker. Can hardly wait for April’s end, May is now my bestest friend.
Checking my watch, I’m running late - gor blimey guv, is that the date?
Over on Monty’s sporting thread I told ‘em I no longer bled, and never was required to fight, so I am not your bleedin’ Knight. Hope you like your April fool.
Nighty night Knight and God bless all.
Love,
Caz, the daughter of Alice, running away from all the malice, with alice band and snow white bunny, down rabbit hole, now isn’t that funny? I’m late for a very important date, if I don’t run I’m dead. So off I go ‘fore queenie screams “Off with her empty head!”
PS The charm’s all wound up here, just like the watch. Tick tick tick tick tick…..
PPS Dream on John. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
Nice job, Caz. But the thing is, I never rhyme.
Your happy April fool,
--John
PS: Only 105 days now remain until July 14. |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 45
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Nothing’s changed here in the last week I see…!
Hi Chris
I hope you get a chance to have an unbiased look at the watch reports very soon, (I believe genuine efforts are being made to sort this out), although I think to suggest your view will be anything other than biased against an older hoax is taking things a bit far methinks. 
Hopefully, when you see both of these peoples findings in context you will see why they have stirred up so much interest.
I’ve been looking at the Spectragraphs this last week, the ones Dr. Wild did, and apparently Carbon was found in equal measures at the base of the scratches and on the adjacent surface…! Those who don’t believe for a minute that this watch was hoaxed in 1993 do indeed have a great deal to be thankful for.
Its very vulgar to parade your qualifications in public I know, but does Physics and Chemistry at A level count? Probably not, it was a long time ago.
This is all new information, Chris, and not a new interpretation. As far as I’m aware, none of this has ever been discussed or known about publicly before. Not for any underhanded reasons, but simply because the owner of the watch had no reason to look any deeper when the reports already confirmed all that he could ever want.
Of course, as both Murphy and Dundas saw the scratches before they were even there, we don’t need the reports to knock that one on the head do we?
Regards to everyone,
Paul
P.S. Enjoy your Easter Caz.
 |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Paul writes:
"Nothing’s changed here in the last week I see…!"
Are you surprised?
Come back in a year. You can write the sentence again.
--John
PS: Oh yeah, I've been wondering, is everyone collectively assuming that the diary and watch are the same age? The language around here makes it seem that way. The implication is always that if one can be dated, then that would date the other. Do you all believe that to be true? I'm genuinely curious.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Hi John,
Just a quickie before I finally sign off to enjoy my Easter (thanks, Paul, and you!),
Collective assumption is rather difficult for any one person to assume anything about, so unless your definition of 'everyone' suddenly wants to arrive in this place, unpack their bags and get into a discussion about it with you, you may well still be waiting this time next year for any response that answers your question satisfactorily.
I never like to assume anything, and I think it's rather premature to even bother, until 'everyone' can collectively agree on the dating of one or other of the artefacts. But thanks for posing the question anyway.
Hopping off now.
Love,
Caz, wondering to herself how curiosity could ever be anything other than genuine
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
