|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 50
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 10:25 am: |       |
Hi Harry
A few interesting posts here.
The first real question that has to be answered IMHO is that of which came first, the diary or the watch, or maybe both at the same time.
All of the hoax theories I have ever heard suggested, both here and elsewhere, put the diary first, and then the watch following after as a sort of bandwagon hoax, created to add credibility to the diary.
Something it singularly failed to do at the outset it seems.
News of the diary first came out in around April 1993, but the evidence is now quite overwhelming that the watch scratches already existed in the previous year at the very least.
If the hoaxer had placed the watch in Murphy’s window in 1992, he would have just had to hope that a gullible member of the public would first of all buy it, and then notice the very slight scratches and understand what they were and appreciate their potential importance. He should also be grateful that Mr Murphy’s attempts at polishing them out fell short of total obliteration. Not a very good bet really.
It seems to me that the only hoax scenario that fits all of the available evidence is that both articles are older hoaxes, maybe about 20 or so years ago, or indeed possibly even contemporary with the murders.
In which case the hoaxer, if hoaxer there be, is quite probably no longer with us, and we sadly can’t ask him anything.
Dating the thing is really the only way this is ever likely to be sorted out.
I’m sure you are absolutely right that Michael Barrett would respond positively to a large enough lump of sugar. You may well get a resounding neigh. The problem is that the following week you would more than likely get an equally resounding YEA!
Regards
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Paul,
I've been around here for a very long time (check your CD). Every time someone (including me) comes onto a diary board and writes a sentence that starts with "The evidence is now quite overwhelming that..." I know to become immediately suspicious. And since this particular "overwhelming" evidence is not even available to the general public yet, I am doubly doubtful of such rhetoric.
There are plenty of textual indicators in the diary, as well as related pieces of testimonial evidence, that strongly suggest this book was made by someone with access to materials available only after the 1980s (including the police report which never was missing and the tv miniseries, to name just two).
And at least one fully qualified and as of yet unchallenged expert lists at least three concrete reasons why it could not have been faked before 1950 (the Smith and Tabram absences), 1970 (the Kelly photo lines), and 1980 (the matchbox reference) respectively.
So I would warn readers about basing any conclusions on evidence whose only compelling support is that it overwhelms Paul.
And as for "dating the thing..." I agree.
Again.
But it ain't gonna' happen. And not just because I don't date anymore.
All the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 07, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on April 07, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
One of several questions still not being addressed by those who assert the scratches on the watch are old is this -
If the watch is not a hoax inspired by the diary, how can you account for the astonishing coincidence that the very first time anyone read the scratches was within about a month of the newspapers breaking the diary story?
This has to be swallowed as "just a coincidence" whether you believe that the diary and watch are both genuine, or that the watch is an old fake.
Needless to say, there is obviously no "overwhelming evidence" that the scratches on the watch are old. If there were, everyone would have stopped discussing Barnett, Druitt, Kosminski - even Sickert - and would be populating this board!
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
Paul,
Not being sarcastic,but the idea of a hoax came first.If the diary and watch are part of a single operation,one can rightly say they were 'manufactured' simultaneously,regardless of which appeared first.One compliments the other.
No gullible member of the public had to be a part of the hoax.The reason for the hoax,as with most of it,s kind,is to deceive.The only gullible persons are those who were so deceived. |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 51
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Hi Chris and Harry
Hmmmmm…
There is overwhelming evidence that the watch scratches pre-date the first public reports of the Diary’s existence in April 1993. I’ve seen it, I’ve seen the micrographs, and so have several others. Hopefully you will see it soon too, it’s an excellent read!
Beyond that, I don’t recall anyone, including myself, asserting that there was overwhelming evidence that the scratches were old. Very very strong, but not overwhelming.
Once you have eliminated a 1993 date for the watch scratches, the possibility of it being a recent hoax diminishes greatly, and any theories I’ve heard here and elsewhere start bordering on the ridiculous in trying to explain how the various events are supposed to have happened before the Diary hit the news.
In all probability both the watch and diary did originate from the same person or persons, and at the same time. Dating one artefact will probably date the other.
Fascinating stuff eh..?
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
Paul,
If the evidence is "overwhelming," why are so few people overwhelmed by it?
That would seem to be part of the term's definition, no?
Also, what evidence do you have for your final claim, that the two artefacts probably originated from the same person or persons?
Do you know something no one else does, or are you just guessing?
Just working to keep the facts and the desire separate,
--John |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Paul,
Both watch and diary,in their present state,will have to be proved to have been in the possession of James Maybrick during a period after the murders and before his death,to be proved authentic.
So far they can be traced back to Albert Johnston and Michael Barrett in the early 1990's.
Long way to go Paul. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
Paul
You mention that you've seen overwhelming evidence that the scratches are older than the first reports of the diary, and that "Hopefully you will see it soon too".
That would be a step forward, but is it still on the cards? The planned publication in Ripperologist was evidently vetoed for some reason, by person or persons unknown. Was that a temporary veto, and can we still expect to see the scientific evidence published?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Just seen this - I have tried to address your very reasonable concerns over on the Maywatch board.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:35 am: | |
Hey Chris,
Congratulations.
I'm glad at least someone's "concerns" are "reasonable."
Way to go,
--John |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 54
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Harry
Spot on….nearly!
The diary can be traced back to Michael Barrett and the day he took it to London for the first time. Anything prior to that is still a bit suss.
The watch scratches on the other hand, can be traced back to a date in 1992, prior to Albert’s purchase. He’s in the clear. No doubt about it.
Do you have to be overwhelmed when faced with overwhelming evidence? 
Regards
Paul
P.S.
Hi Caz. Nice to see you back!
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Paul,
If you're not overwhelmed (or at least persuaded), then it wasn't overwhelming for you, was it?
--John
PS: Harry, don't be too quick to believe that "no doubt about it." |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
Hi, Chris Phillips
We were unable to publish the Wilde and Turgoose reports on the scratches in time for the publication of the March 2004 issue of Ripperologist. I understand that we do still have plans to go ahead with publication of the reports.
All the best
Chris |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
Chris
Thanks for confirming that; Caroline Morris has posted to the same effect on another board.
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
Paul,
Spot on,nearly.
Good try old son,but the initials on the watch,can only be traced back as far as Albert Johnson.That is the present state.
Unless of course you can identify someone who obseved them previously.
Scratches wont do.Still a hundred and something years to Maybrick.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 57
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Sorry Harry,
Still spot on. Try the Murphys, Tim Dundas and David Thompson for starters. They all saw 'em, and before Albert even laid eyes on the thing, let alone got his hands on it.
Irritating isn't it?
Paul
Still overwhelmed. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Paul
I think you are confused. Dundas specifically said he didn't see them!
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
Ah yes,
There's a collection of statements that are in no way contradictory or problematic. That why this question of when the marks were made was solved so long ago by all those who had access to the same words, right?
I see no sign yet that anything has changed.
Instead, we have just another reading being offered by yet another set of desires.
And the circle dance continues.
Still waiting,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:37 pm: | |
Paul
What on earth do you mean by saying that David Thompson saw the scratches "before Albert even laid eyes on the thing, let alone got his hands on it"?
He was consulted by Shirley Harrison, wasn't he?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
We were posting at the same time. My remarks about the contradictory nature of the statements was in response to Paul's list of names (as you can tell).
You saw the same thing apparently.
Thanks,
--John
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 5:59 am: | |
Paul,
The Murphy's,Tim Dundas and all,saw scratches.They did not see initials.
The initials are still with Albert,and the time to Maybrick is lenghtening. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
But Harry,
There are no scratches beneath the allegedly hoaxed ones, visible either to the naked eye or under high-tech high magnification. So what scratches exactly are you saying the Murphys, Dundas and 'all' saw, before Albert bought the watch?
Love,
A puzzled Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Caz
I hope we can agree at any rate that there can be no question of David Thompson having seen any scratches before Albert Johnson owned the watch.
I hope we can also agree that Dundas was adamant that the Maybrick scratches weren't there when he saw the watch. I know he says there were what he calls repair marks, and I know it's being argued that these are the marks that Turgoose said were made after what's being interpreted as the tail of the "J". But that's still very different from Dundas having seen the scratches.
It's reasonable to ask what scratches Murphy (not the Murphys as far as I know) said he was trying to polish out. Of course, he said he couldn't be sure they were the Maybrick scratches. But if Murphy's statement is accepted, it's reasonable to ask what scratches they were.
That's why I'm interested to discuss that scratch that's being described as "the tail of the J" in particular, and the scratches interpreted as "I am Jack" in general. The trouble is that the people who claim the scratches are old apparently want to avoid discussing this.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:37 am: | |
Hi Chris,
The point is, if Ron Murphy wasn't lying or mistaken about seeing some scratches in 1992 and trying to polish them out, why didn't Turgoose see any scratches at all - under much greater magnification and using far more sophisticated gadgetry - beneath those you believe were put there by Albert or his late brother in May 1993?
You have told us on many occasions that you don't think we should continue discussing the H 9 3 crossing the J of Jack and so on until you can see the evidence, as contained in the reports, for yourself. If people are avoiding such a discussion, perhaps it's because they respected or agreed with your opinion on the matter.
Have you changed your mind?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 5:03 am: | |
Caz
First, I haven't accused anyone in particular of faking the scratches. Please have the courtesy not to put words into my mouth. There's enough factual misinformation in this thread already.
You are correct that I think it's pointless to discuss the scientific evidence until the reports have been published. But as you've been making rather far-reaching claims based on the reports, not only on the Maybrick threads but elsewhere, it's clearly disingenuous of you to claim you're avoiding this issue out of "respect" for my opinion (!).
If you don't want to discuss it, fair enough. But it does seem a bit perverse of you to keep asking this question, "What scratches could Murphy have seen?" when someone is suggesting a possible answer, which you refuse to address.
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.
|
|
|
|
