|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 11:05 am: |       |
Caz,
I'm just asking everyone here what they think. I'm fine with people answering for themselves individually. And there's no reason why such a question is necessarily premature. You don't need the dates to ask or answer the question.
Do we think the two artefacts are the same age, whatever age they might be?
But you're right, given the pace of things I've witnessed in the past, I'm sure that I'll be able to ask the question next year, too.
--John (assuring Caz that there's plenty of fake curiosity, of posed curiosity, all around us)
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Caz--A question. And exceedingly off-topic. Do you happen to know who ended up paying for Robbie to be brought back to the UK? Was it Paul Feldman? Strange question, I know. RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 970
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 8:06 am: | |
Hi RJ,
Why not ask Albert yourself?
Drop me an email and I'll let you have my full postal address. Put all your questions for any of the suspected hoaxers in letters in sealed envelopes addressed to them, send those envelopes to me, together with the money to cover the postage and my time, and I will arrange to forward them for you.
Then, if you get any replies which you think are relevant to the investigation, you can decide whether to post the information here for your readers or continue your research behind the scenes.
I am now on holiday for the next couple of weeks and after that I may finally be forced to seek unemployment benefit if I don't get a sniff of any paid work by then.
Regarding Citizen Kane, and your efforts to organise professional handwriting comparisons, Keith Skinner tells me he would be happy to put you in touch with Sue Iremonger. (Again, drop me an email and it shall be arranged.) Sue has already seen Kane's handwriting, but very early on, in 1992, when she was sent Tony Devereux's Will. She apparently raised no suspicion about it, but at the time Kane was not yet on the 'wanted' list.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on April 05, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
My two lawyer friends turn out not to be criminal attorneys and so were understandably hesitant to offer any formal opinion on criminal matters involving forgery or the use of volunteered handwriting samples in such cases. However, within our general discussion, they seemed to think that whoever actually owns the samples should be able to have them tested with or without anyone else's permission.
I would check with a criminal attorney, though, just to be sure.
And if you decide to take Caz up on her offer and send her questions in sealed envelopes (it sounds almost as if you are trying to contact heads of state or royalty), please let us know, as I suspect there might be some people here who would be willing to volunteer a question or two.
I might be wrong about that, though.
Wishing you the best of luck,
--John |
Peter R. A. Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Pbirchwood
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
RJ:
Don't waste your money. Send me an email for the addresses of anybody concerned in the diary/watch fiasco (fiascos?) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Guys--Thanks for the advice and offers. Peter--I might take you up on it. I, of course, have no interest in the details of Robbie Johnson' s funeral, nor would I trouble his brother with questions about it. I had a specific reason for asking. All the best. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Evidently the scientific reports by Turgoose and Wild on the "Maybrick" watch didn't appear, as hoped, in the March issue of Ripperologist.
I wonder if anyone can tell me who vetoed their appearance (and if possible why), and if there is any chance of the reports being made public in the future?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 6:14 am: | |
Hi Chris,
The following message by Adam Wood, posted to this thread on 19 March at 9.49am, explained the position:
Dear all
Sorry to be bearer of bad news, but at the time of writing we have yet to receive permission to publish the reports. As we are due to go to press at the end of today it is a distinct possibility that the reports will not appear in the March issue.
Adam
Production
Ripperologist magazine
But happily, yes, there is every chance the reports will be made public in the future.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
Chris,
Well, that certainly answered your "who" and "why" questions.
I'm glad we cleared it all up.
Perpetually unsurprised,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 8:58 am: | |
Caz
Thanks for your post; I had seen Adam Wood's previous post, but was (mainly) curious to know whether the impediment was permanent.
I'm pleased to hear that the reports are likely to be made public in the future.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
You are most welcome.
And I'm very pleased that you are pleased.
Love,
Caz
X |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
"Johnson immediately returned to the science and maths building and a larger microscope was found." --Ripper Diary: The Inside Story, pg. 40-41.
This would seem to be an unlikely scenerio if Mr. Johnson was working at the technical school during regular classroom/lab hours. I suppose it's possible, but it seem rather unlikely that he would be wandering around the school on private business during the day. So am I to understand that Mr. Johnson's job as a security officer was in the evening, and this gave him free access to the technical labs, microscopes, &tc., at the college? RP
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
In re-reading the various reports of this initial discovery of the scratches by Mr. Johnson, I see now that it is stated that a 'technician' at Liverpool Polytechnic was asked to look at the watch's scratches. So perhaps the discovery was made during working hours. (I believe it was once stated that incidental light from a window was said to have illuminated the almost invisible markings). This technician would seem to be an important witness to the discovery. Has this person made a statement? Johnso's co-workers were apparently contacted, but in Harrison's book (Blake, pg. 241) it's clear that they weren't actually present when this "examination" was said to take place. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1016
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
Who are you expecting to answer these questions?
I am starting my new job next week and have no more time to help every time someone has another query related to Albert's statements about the discovery of the scratches in his watch.
In any case, I fully expect all such queries to be redundant as soon as the watch reports are published, since these will confirm what is already known to those who have read them through recently.
Time will reveal all. Just a little more patience is required.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
I wasn't going to jump back in, but I couldn't let this one pass...
"In any case, I fully expect all such queries to be redundant as soon as the watch reports are published, since these will confirm what is already known to those who have read them through recently."
I wouldn't get my hopes up Caz. Having read them, I can say with certainty that the reports are hardly a slam dunk for "old scratches". In fact, they confirm that the scratches could be recent. They could be old, but that hasn't been proven by a long shot.
Nor is the evidence "overwhelming" as Paul likes to call it. Suggestive perhaps. But not overwhelming in any way, shape, or form. The conclusions drawn are highly speculative and not well supported in many aspects.
And of course, there is no independent confirmation that the scratches existed before the "discovery" at Albert's job.
I look forward to the documents being made public so they can be discussed in detail. I'll be back then.
Congratulations on your new job Caz! I hope it goes well for you.
In the meantime, I have my own new job to get back to.
Carry on all.
Best Regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Caz--Of course I am entirely holding on to the false hope that there is someone alive in Liverpool who might have the answers to any or all of my above questions. Maybe not, though, but thanks. Another question might be 'what was the exact nature of Robbie's job on the "fringes" of the music industry?" Would it put him in the same sphere as a video producer?
"what is already known to those who have read them through..."
Hmm. Would that include Martin Fido? I can't speak for that erudite gentleman, but I do recall that he had read them, found them "impressive" and still stuck to the notion that the Diary is a recent fake. RP
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
Just so I'm sure I didn't miss something, the reports about to be published are the Turgoose and Wild reports, right? The ones that have been around for a good many years (Turgoose, 1993 and Wild, 1994). There are no new reports, correct?
And is one of these the report where the scientist makes a note of only being able to collect a "limited amount of evidence" because he was not given full access to the material being tested and concludes a paragraph about what "appears" to be the case with the words "it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work" (referring to work he never went on to do)?
Or maybe this is not one of the documents being published. I might have that wrong.
In any case, it'll be interesting to see whether Paul's confidence in these documents' unambiguous conclusions or John's evaluation of their possibilities turns out to be the more applicable reading.
Ready and waiting,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 4:39 am: | |
H93
O ye of little faith... 
Thanks John (H), off for a training session for the new job right now. Hope yours is going well. By all means don't get your hopes up, if you don't want to. I rarely do hope, as rarely as I do beliefs in fact. So no need for me to get my hopes up at all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 55
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
Hi John H, (or should that be H 9/3?  )
Nice to see you popping in from time to time.
Now don’t I recall that when I suggested Tim Dundas, (he of the dodgy testimony and “two watches” scenario of Paul Feldman’s), was wrong about the watch scratches, you and several others jumped to his defence? He couldn’t have been wrong could he? After all he swore an affadavit or something.
Tim Dundas saw the scratches that are atop the Maybrick ones before Albert bought the watch, and he’s right cos you said he was.
Don’t you just love it?
I can’t wait for all three reports to come out. The ones that settle that little matter once and for all. I’m just so overwhelmed by it all.
On the other hand, when the state of inevitable denial sets in once again, maybe not….!
See you soon I hope
Paul
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
I can see it now. H 9/3. The watch was serviced, September, 1903. Maybrick is discovered to be the Ripper; and Mrs. L.P 29 is suddenly and unexpectedly released from Aylesbury in January, 1904 under a tight cloak of secrecy. Lovely opening scene for a Hollywood movie. Let's do lunch sometime. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
Paul Butler wrote:
Tim Dundas saw the scratches that are atop the Maybrick ones before Albert bought the watch, and he’s right cos you said he was.
Leaving aside the assumption that the "usual" marks referred to by Dundas are the ones you want them to be, there's still the dangling question of what Turgoose (apparently) thought they were on top of.
I asked before how this scratch could identified as the tail of the "J" of "I am Jack". The problem is that it seems to depend on the fact that the scratch joins on to the downstroke of the "J". But is this really the downstroke of the "J", or is it a "forward slash" between the "9" and the "3" - Turgoose himself having (apparently) referred to it as "H 9/3", not "H 9 3"?
By the way, I don't remember anyone on the sceptical side expressing unquestioning reliance in what Dundas said. On the other hand, you said yourself (1 March) that he got his watches mixed up and was describing what was patently not the Maybrick watch in his interview with Paul Feldman. Have you now changed your mind about his reliability?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
Yup,
So some people here have read them. And these reports are really clearing everything up. Yup. Just as they have been since they first appeared, over ten years ago.
No one has answered my question -- is there a new one being published?
I honestly don't know the answer here. Has a new report been written by someone somewhere?
Or is it just the old Turgoose and Wild ones that are coming around again?
Still waiting to be overwhelmed by the revelations,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:30 am: | |
H93 and 1275 - the significance never before appreciated by anyone of both being engraved neatly over the invisible-to-the-naked-eye J of Jack.
Thanks to Paul Butler, arriving with his silver salver laden with 25 years' worth of relevant experience and braving the shark-infested waters of Maywatch to ask a few very pertinent questions, I finally got myself access to the watch reports so I could help him with some answers (since he had the good grace to show a bit of appreciation for any nuggets of information freely offered) and I just happened to find the nugget of gold.
That's what's new, pussycats.
It's not unusual for me lately to find out new and wonderful things on an almost daily basis - I would use the word 'exciting', only I fear it might make the remaining natives restless.
I feel a bit like Howard Carter must have done when fate showed him all those 'wonderful things'.
Only working two half-days this week, so I may get a chance to catch up with all the posts I missed over Easter.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
Thanks, Caz,
So, then, there are no new watch reports being published. Just the old ones that have been around for ten years, but this time as re-read yet again by Paul Butler and Caz.
And the Wild report is still the one that remarks about having only limited access to the material being tested and recognizing its own incompleteness.
And, as Chris has pointed out above, the question of what exactly the marks are or are not engraved over remains still with us.
So, as John Hacker has suggested, the available conclusions depend simply on a specific act of interpretation.
I wonder if desire will play any role in what each person decides all of this means?
We've been promised overwhelming clarity.
Will I be surprised?
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 26, 2004) |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 56
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Hi Chris
“Leaving aside the assumption that the "usual" marks referred to by Dundas are the ones you want them to be, there's still the dangling question of what Turgoose (apparently) thought they were on top of.”
Want them to be?….There ain’t any other scratch marks inside the back of the watch mate. Take a look!
And nope, I haven’t changed my mind one bit. ‘twasn’t me who said Mr Dundas was right. Don’t forget the Murphys, the Prescott watch museum etc……try again!
Hi Caz
Glad to see the new job isn’t keeping you away from the strange world of Maywatch and its wonderful time defying and self collapsing scratches. Albert must be laughing his socks off!
See you
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Paul
Of course there _were_ other scratch marks inside the rim (which don't show up on the photo). We've been through this before, at some length.
But do you have any thoughts on the "tail of the J", the "stem of the J", "H 9/3" versus "H 9 3", and so on?
This is really rather important, if the claims of "new evidence" from these old reports hang on this claim (as it seems from Caz's latest post that they do). If Turgoose referred to the mark as "H 9/3", is the "stem of the J" not really where it appears to be on the photo? Is it somewhere else? What does the "tail of the J" join on to? And so on.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:40 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
I am just amazed at Albert's apparent audacity - dating his own work by choosing to engrave a neat H93 over the ripper scratches just a few weeks before handing the watch over to be minutely scrutinised.
'H[oaxed in 19]93' - you couldn't make it up, could you? 
Still puzzled by the 1275 though. Perhaps that was his estimate for how much the tests might set him back.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Yes, Chris, these are the questions aren't they?
Paul,
I agree with you about one thing -- perhaps Albert is indeed "laughing his socks off."
But even as the slimmest of hopes (the consequence of another reading accompanied by desire) is being promoted as "overwhelming evidence" and even as hope is being kept alive despite all the textual evidence in the diary and the despite all the problems with provenance and handwriting and despite all the rest, the revelations in watchworld seem already to be in danger of not settling anything.
Yes, I suspect there are some people still laughing. And well they should.
Waiting, as always,
--John |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 58
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
Chris
There is ONE repair mark inside the rim. Singular. One number. Nowhere near the inside back. Dundas saw the usual repair numbers. Plural.
What it all boils down to John and Chris is whether or not you think Dr. Turgoose is a competent enough PhD to be able to tell which scratch is which!
If you don’t, as it seems you are suggesting, (and even PhDs must get some things wrong once in a while I suppose), then there’s nothing I or Caz or anyone else can do to change your made up minds.
If, on the other hand, you are prepared to accept that the poor guy can actually see straight, and has the intelligence to see which overlays which, and therefore come to a very simple conclusion about chronological order, then you’re home and dry.
The repair marks came last. They are repair marks, but it doesn’t actually matter what they are, they were noticed before the diary came out and neatly place the watch scratches well out of Albert Johnson’s capability.
Overwhelming?….I should say so.
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Paul,
So the debate hasn't changed a bit, then. It's still just a set of old reports being interpreted in one way by some people and in another by others without a bit of real new evidence of any sort and without any evidence whatsoever that claims clearly or definitively whether the scratches are old or not.
And all the other real evidence, the words in the diary, its ahistoricism, its complete lack of provenance, the handwriting, and everything else, point clearly and exclusively in a single direction -- away from authenticity and away from the idea that this book was ever anywhere even near the real James Maybrick.
Nothing has changed (of course).
Paul continues to use his favorite word, in the hopes that if he simply repeats it enough times someone might believe him. But there's no new evidence, no new facts, no new information, and still no solid or rational reason to think that either of these artifacts are anything other than fakes.
That's the June update.
See you all next month, when it will no doubt be repeatable.
All the best,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Paul
You'll really have to decide whether you think Dundas was hopelessly confused and was thinking about another watch entirely (which you claimed previously), or whether his recollection was so precise that you can draw the conclusion you want to from his use of "numbers" rather than "number" (at the same time as discounting his emphatic statements that the "Maybrick scratches" were not on the watch when he saw it!).
As for the stuff about Turgoose's competence and the "simple conclusion" to be drawn from his report, of course we've been over this ad nauseam. We need to see what Turgoose actually said before we can discuss his findings sensibly.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1074
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Hi Paul,
I guess it doesn't really matter at the end of the day who allegedly said what and who allegedly saw what inside the watch. People will believe what they want to believe. When the reports see the light of day, it will be interesting to discover just how many (or how few) will feel compelled to cling to a belief that the ripper scratches must have been put there by a hoaxer after 14 July 1992, and will find themselves utterly incapable of even considering the alternative.
Favourite words from today's commentators - on either side of the fence - will count for nothing.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Caz
Of course, it remains to be seen whether it's a question of one side clinging to its belief that the scratches are late, or the other clinging to its belief that the reports prove them to be old.
Any idea what the hold-up is with publishing these reports?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 5:30 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Of course, except that I'm not sure I know of anyone who is 'clinging to a belief', as such, that the reports prove the scratches are old.
There appears to be not one shred of evidence, forensic or otherwise, that the scratches were likely to have been made as late as 1993, yet this is the one belief that will need to be clung to by the few who care the most - and clung to regardless of what information will become available to them, as well as to the non axe-grinding general public.
I'm sorry, but we will all just have to be patient for a while longer. I didn't know the watch existed until late 1998 so I'm luckier than those who have been waiting more than ten years for time to reveal all.
No one here was calling for the reports to be published until I happened to remark on the H 9 3 (or H9/3) business earlier this year. You can thank me - or not, as the case may be - all in good time. But remember I'm still only the messenger, and what's done cannot be undone.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
Caz
It's not that I'm impatient - just curious as to whose permission was not forthcoming when the publication of the reports was thought to be imminent a couple of months ago.
I presume it's a secret...
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 9:16 am: | |
So when do you think the marks were made anyone?
Jennifer |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1078
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 4:59 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Not so much a case of any permissions 'not forthcoming', more a case of making sure that those permissions are well-informed ones, handled in a proper, unhurried and professional manner. Heavy criticism in the past about every action (and supposed non-action) by the various investigators makes it doubly important that belt and braces should be employed now and in the future. If belt and braces are causing a hold-up in operations I for one am thankful for that! Fools rush in and all that jazz.
Curiosity is understandable, as is impatience. But I've learned that spending enough time and effort on doing things in the right way pays dividends for everyone in the long run.
Hello Jenn,
All I know is that if anyone can show that those marks were put in the watch by a Johnson brother in 1993, then I'd start to believe Mike Barrett really could have masterminded the diary - even if R J Lees had to help him from the other side.
Have a great weekend all. See some of you at the Darts tomorrow night?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 5:39 am: | |
I was only going by Adam Wood's statement (about 11 weeks ago) that at the time of writing we have yet to receive permission to publish the reports.
But I've learned that spending enough time and effort on doing things in the right way pays dividends for everyone in the long run.
Quite admirable, Caz. Probably a good idea, on this basis, if people don't go around claiming that "it's increasingly clear" from these reports that the scratches were made before a certain date, or that the evidence is "overwhelming", until it's in the public domain, and can be properly evaluated.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 5:53 am: | |
Caz,
Cheers.
Ps I don't think RJ Lees would help anyone from the other side to fraud so there goes the last of the obstacles to your thought process!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jennifer |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 5:37 am: | |
Quite, Chris.
That's why I admitted to you that I've now learned to exercise even more caution! Let's hope others get the message in time. When more information does emerge, we will perhaps discover exactly whose opinions or assumptions were unfounded, premature or completely off base at the time of expressing them.
Hi Jenn,
I sometimes wonder whether I should, for a quiet life, just say, "Yes, I expect Albert did scratch his watch and Mike did write the diary and all the investigators have simply been too thick or too crooked to work it all out and admit it."
But somehow I always manage to come to my senses in time...
Love,
Caz |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:00 am: | |
Caroline writes a sentence beginning,
"When new information does emerge..."
Ah, if only.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 4:12 am: | |
Where there is a real life mystery there is always the potential for new information to emerge. We know there is information not yet available to all, the full watch reports being just two examples.
And it is an absolute certainty that other information is out there somewhere if, as some would have us believe, at least three people are still alive who were actively involved with faking the diary and/or watch.
I was always taught to err very much on the side of caution when I know, or have been made aware, that there is missing, incomplete, undisclosed or as yet undisclosable information, that others most definitely possess and may one day be able to verify and make available to me.
I was also taught to avoid assumption and presumption at all costs, and only to think about reaching conclusions when every scrap of information I was previously lacking is safely gathered in and can be carefully and thoroughly analysed.
Maybe I'm out of touch and maybe they teach things differently these days. But I will still advise my daughter never to assume how a story ends when the last page is missing, and there are people alive who have read it.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
Caroline offers us all this sound advice:
"I was also taught to avoid assumption and presumption at all costs, and only to think about reaching conclusions when every scrap of information I was previously lacking is safely gathered in and can be carefully and thoroughly analysed."
"...carefully and thoroughly analysed."
Yes.
Of course at that rate, around here, you'll die of natural causes, still typing.
In any case, life goes on and the thing's obviously a fake.
At least there's that.
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
So why are you still here?
I think everyone who wondered what your opinion was got the message some time ago, unless you think all the readers here are brain dead and need everything repeated a thousand times.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 10:02 am: | |
What an odd thing, the smile at the end of that message.
Me? I'm just hanging around, like everyone else, watching the world go by, waiting to see if anything ever happens, and just killing time.
And besides, we get new readers everyday.
Enjoying the show,
--John
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 60
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 1:39 pm: | |
John
I think we all gathered a long time ago that you think both watch and diary are recent fakes. You cling to that belief along with Chris and whoever else if it gives you comfort, but the recent standard of your postings does little credit to your point of view.
I thought I had joined a discussion board. Thanks to you and a few others it's nothing of the sort as far as Maybrick is concerned.
A lively and informative debate does continue elsewhere, and it may return here one day.
Back off eh? Go and give someone else the pleasure. Lets have a discussion again like when you gave it a break last time.
Boring is not the word!
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 7:39 pm: | |
Here I am on vacation at a lovely hotel and out of nowhere Paul shows up to berate me about something.
That's fine.
Since he offers no new evidence, no new arguments, no new test results, no new anything, there's nothing really to discuss.
I'll continue to watch, though (pardon the pun), in the highly unlikely chance that some scientist actually does get unlimited access to the watch someday or gets a chance to thoroughly retest the book.
I know that day is never coming, but I can dream.
In the meantime, since all the available evidence points to the book never having been anywhere near the real James Maybrick, we are precisely where we started, dealing with fakes, whether Paul likes the conversation or not.
Having a wonderful time, wish you were here,
--John |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 61
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
Hope you're enjoying yorself John. I don't think I'll join you if its all the same to you.
Paul |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 62
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
Chris
Quite admirable, Caz. Probably a good idea, on this basis, if people don't go around claiming that "it's increasingly clear" from these reports that the scratches were made before a certain date, or that the evidence is "overwhelming", until it's in the public domain, and can be properly evaluated
And still you persist. Either me and several others are telling complete fibs about the watch reports, in which case we will have made public asses of ourselves when they come out, or we haven't.
Yet again, and for the record, the order of the scratches as described by Turgoose is totally unambiguous in his report.
It's also getting rather tiresome hearing about how Albert didn't allow proper access to the watch. He let Turgoose have it on 10th and 23rd August 2003, and Wild had it on 31st January 1994. How many more tests would be reasonable in your view?
Paul |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Paul
To be blunt, you have made a number of factual misstatements on these boards. When they've been pointed out, you've disappeared into the ether rather than acknowledging them, let alone correcting them.
In the circumstances, can you be surprised that people want to see the reports for themselves rather than trusting your various versions of what they say?
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.
|
|
|
|
