|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through November 26, 2004 | Jennifer D. Pegg | 50 | 1 | 11-26-04 12:44 pm |
| Archive through December 06, 2004 | Caroline Anne Morris | 50 | 1 | 12-06-04 5:03 am |
| Archive through December 23, 2004 | Jennifer D. Pegg | 50 | 1 | 12-23-04 9:27 am |
| Archive through January 03, 2005 | John V. Omlor | 50 | 1 | 1-03-05 9:37 am |
| Archive through January 05, 2005 | John V. Omlor | 50 | 1 | 1-05-05 11:18 am |
| Archive through January 06, 2005 | Sir Robert Anderson | 50 | 1 | 1-06-05 6:25 pm |
| Archive through January 12, 2005 | George Hutchinson | 50 | 1 | 1-12-05 9:17 am |
| Archive through January 24, 2005 | Jennifer D. Pegg | 50 | 1 | 1-24-05 7:19 am |
| Archive through February 01, 2005 | John V. Omlor | 50 | 1 | 2-01-05 7:10 am |
| Archive through February 09, 2005 | Chris Phillips | 50 | 1 | 2-09-05 2:24 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 3:39 pm: | 
|
the watch being condemned not on any of its own evidence but purely because of the diary
Yes, why not claim that? You might just pull the wool over somebody's eyes, if they're not aware that over on another thread we've just been discussing sworn evidence, given by someone who examined the watch under magnification soon before it was sold to Albert Johnson, and who says the scratches weren't on it then.
I realise you've been doing your best to cast doubt on that evidence, but to come here just a few hours later, and simply pretend it doesn't exist, is plain dishonest.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1844
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Hold the phone, could it be...
'It might be worth remembering here that a hoaxer does not live by faith and publicity alone, but also by the failure of the rest of us to expose him. '
we all agree on something!
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
For the record,
"...so please feel free, on my behalf, to put up on the Message Board my stated position on the historical status of this journal. I believe it to be a fake because it is not written in the authenticated handwriting of James Maybrick."
Keith Skinner to me, e-mail, Monday, July 05, 2004 6:26 PM
--John (home at last) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
It was crafted and designed that way.
So what hard evidence (not opinion or speculation) did we omit that you would have included, to lead readers back to a central point of neutrality, or perhaps even towards 'the idea of a modern forgery'?
Of course people will believe the authors have formed certain opinions from the information in their possession. That's entirely natural. I can't speak for my co-authors, but my own opinions have been far from static concerning the origins of both diary and watch, and have in fact changed more than once with regard to certain aspects since the book came out.
But other readers have said we were biased against the diary, and think the book was crafted and designed that way, so we can't win!
We had a mile of documentation and correspondence which confirmed the existence of, and referred in various amounts of detail to, the specific agreements and other documents mentioned in our book. We didn't have sight of every single document and every single figure, and where we considered it important to do so, every effort was made to obtain copies.
Well done for getting someone to supply you with just one specific document that you considered so vital.
Now how is it going to help with exposing the watch hoaxer, exactly?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Hi John,
So Keith didn't in fact say that he believed 'these things are hoaxes' then?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Caroline,
What? "Fake," I take it, means "hoax."
Smelling more game playing,
--John
PS: Unless you are suggesting that Keith believes the diary to be a hoax but the watch to be actually scratched by the real James Maybrick?
If that's true, then I indeed take back the original claim that he believes these things (plural) are hoaxes.
Prove it and I will.
(Message edited by omlor on February 10, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
fake/hoax they are the same thing.
fake - v. 1. cause something not genuine to appear real or more valuable by fraud. 2. pretend to have 9an illness, emotion, etc) n 3. person, thing, or act that is not genuine. adj 4. not genuine.
hoax- n 1 deception or trick. v 2. deceive or play a trick upon |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
who cares if Caz book is biased or not.
lets face it most of ripperology is biased against the diary and watch! |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
Biased, Jennifer, or just using common sense?
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
biased?
maybe a little harsh i don't know.
Jenni |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 826
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Caz,
You aren't stupid and though you like to write entire paragraphs to obscure simple points, basically, you either had documents that proved Albert had received money for the story rights, or you didn't. Which is it?
You also know very well how your book was shaded, line after line about Anne and her mental makeup and how she was bearing up under the "onslaught", poor her how she got news on her birthday, poor her how her world was crumbling. The shading does not necessarily come in details omitted, but there are those and I have pointed out some of them to you before, but in the tone the authors use to describe the characters, which is prevalent not only on these very boards, but in your book as well.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
biased?
you make out like you know what caz's opinion is!
anyway watch reports!! |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 828
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
You know, I know, everyone knows. And Caz can state over and over that she has no opinion and blah, blah, and I bet you a ten-spot that come ten years from now, should it ever be proven that the Johnsons hoaxed the watch and the Barretts hoaxed the Diary, Caz will be there claiming she always knew it was possible and thought they probably had all along.
It's always those who refuse to state an opinion that get to claim years down the road that they had known it all along. The easy road of the wishy-washy.
|
Christopher Lowe
Police Constable
Username: Clowe
Post Number: 10
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
There's no such thing as an unbiased historian. |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
I agree, Christopher, I just disagree with Jennifer's assessment that most Ripperologists are biased against the diary. I think "biased" is a poorly descriptive word for the attitude most Ripperologists have toward the diary. I don't believe the earth is flat because evidence suggests it is not. Am I biased against the flat-earth theory? Well, perhaps I am, but the word bias suggests that I reject it out of hand with no real reason.
I'm not biased when it comes to the diary, I just don't believe it. If any real evidence comes out in favor of it, it could change my mind. That's not bias.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1864
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
no we think we know.
i think it doesn't matter.
i'm happy enough !
Christopher,
perhaps not,
I myself am biased i'm sure.
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Kelly,
it was not my intention to offend.
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
Hi,
according to Turgoose the scratches that relate to Maybrick/JTR were made first followed by the other what we might call engravigs the h 9/3 and the number. which we beleive are repair marks.
According to Dundas the repair marks were there but the other marks were not there when he polished the watch.
which brings me to ask, why can't Dundas and the order both be correct?
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
Jenni
I think there are rather a lot of uncertainties here.
There is one mark on the rim, which Dundas might have been referring to.
Then there are the two other marks, which may or may not be repair marks. And the top one may be "H 9/3" if we think there's a stroke between the '9' and the '3' (apparently Turgoose did think this), but it may just be "H 9 3" if we think the stroke is something to do with the 'J'.
Then there's the odd-shaped marking that intersects these two "repair marks". Turgoose interprets that as the tail of the 'J'. In the past I've asked whether this is a safe interpretation of it, because what Turgoose interprets as the '/' of "H 9/3" lies exactly on top of the "stem of the 'J'" (which is a bit strange in itself).
It's this odd-shaped mark that Turgoose says lies under the two "repair marks". (I'm asking on another thread where this is clearly shown in the micrographs.)
If the two "repair marks" were really seen by Dundas, and if Turgoose is right that they were made after the "J", then the J must also have been there when Dundas saw it. But he says the other markings weren't there. That's the problem.
Having said that, Dundas may just have been referring loosely to the engraving on the rim, in which case it wouldn't be a problem at all. (Or as Caroline Morris has suggested, Dundas might have seen some repair marks that were removed by the faker during the artificial ageing process.)
But I think it is puzzling if the "repair marks" are on top of the Maybrick scratches, because it implies that a modern faker either put deliberately put fake repair marks on top of the fake scratches - which seems a bit unlikely to me - or made these marks straightforwardly as part of the hoax, in which case they presumably have some connection with the murders that no one has ever worked out.
Incidentally, one question that's sometimes occurred to me is this. Were real repair marks usually put plumb in the middle of the surface like the "repair marks" on the Maybrick watch? Why wouldn't they be put somewhere less visible, like the one on the rim?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I'm not sure what you are asking. But what we do know is that so far what we have is a series of observational conclusions, some of which contradict each other. What we don't have is solid, fully scientific, analytic conclusions with complete corresponding data.
We have plenty of speculation and some preliminary findings, but not any detailed laboratory analysis.
So we can argue forever (since there's no right answer yet, just speculation, spin, and questions). But until the obvious and logical thing is done and unlimited access to the watch is granted to professionals in a lab for thorough and complete analysis, it won't make any difference.
We can, of course, also conclude whatever we like from the fact that this has not happened and it's now over ten years later.
The life-span of these hoaxes has indeed been aided and assisted by the behavior of some people after the hoaxes appeared.
That's where we are and where we will be for a very long time.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Thanks guys.
i still can't understand that if the repair marks are repair marks and are on top of the Maybrick scratches how whoever made the repair marks didn't see the Maybrick marks.
still probably just me! |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 82
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Jen.
How do you know that the person who made the repair marks didn't see the Ripper marks? You could only know this if you knew who made the repair marks, and if we knew that there wouldn't be anything to argue over anymore would there?
All the best
Paul |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1913
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
hi Paul,
well of course it is possible they saw them and didn't take much note or did nothing about it.
I am one for concerning myself with what is possible i guess!
the fact remains if you saw them youd expect they would do something a la Albert Johnson?
I mean what would making the marks entail. magnification?
Jenni
there you have it! |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 84
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Absolutely Jen.
If I hadn't heard of Maybrick and couldn't care less about JTR then they wouldn't mean much to me either. I'd possibly try and get rid of them though. But then, isn't that exactly what happened?
I shouldn't imagine any magnification would have been needed to make those scratches. They're a complete mess and visible to the naked eye in the right light.
All the best.
Paul |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
nice theory
except Dundas says the scratches were NOT there!
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Several people, including Paul Feldman and Caroline Morris right here on these pages, have reported that the marks are "barely visible."
It seems not at all clear whether they could have been made with just the naked eye.
For the record,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
Apologies for the delay in responding.
If and when we are commissioned to do an updated edition of Ripper Diary, I will happily put the case for not referring to ‘poor Anne’. I will also argue for the inclusion of verified figures for how much Albert paid out for the test reports, and how much he received in permission fees on the strength of the reports’ conclusions, for use of the photos of the watch which he had taken professionally, and for use of information taken from the reports themselves.
It is useful to know how people think our book could be improved, particularly with regard to its objectivity.
…I bet you a ten-spot that come ten years from now, should it ever be proven that the Johnsons hoaxed the watch and the Barretts hoaxed the Diary, Caz will be there claiming she always knew it was possible and thought they probably had all along.
Whether or not I’m still alive in ten years, I can tell you now that I see no chance in hell of anyone proving that the Johnsons hoaxed the watch or the Barretts hoaxed the diary. And there is even less chance that I will ever be claiming I ‘always knew it was possible and thought they probably had all along’. Make of that whatever you will.
Your wishy-washy Caz
Hi Kelly,
While I whole-heartedly respect and understand your opinion that it’s ‘common sense’ to conclude the diary and watch are modern hoaxes, I cannot forget that Keith Skinner is one Ripperologist who has written on more than one occasion - before we were commissioned to write Ripper Diary - that if he ever believed this to be the case, he would drop the investigation immediately. I see no sign that he is likely to be dropping anything in the foreseeable future.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that I would be a fool not to pay heed to this, coming from someone like Keith, who has been at the very core of the story since 1992, and weigh it against the ‘common sense’ view, as expressed by various commentators like yourself, from the outside looking in. I hope I will always retain enough curiosity in my bones to make me pause before going with the vocal majority’s view, when someone of Keith’s objectivity, knowledge and attention to detail is still trying - and failing - to prove his own belief wrong - ie his belief that the diary is not a recently created document.
History, for better or worse, has a healthy and colourful sense of the ridiculous; the perversity of nature and damned good style not to conform to a strictly ‘common sense’ point of view.
In other words, history tends to put two fingers up, on a frighteningly (or comfortingly, depending on how we look at it) regular basis, to anyone hoping they can write it the 'common sense' way and at the same time embrace the whole truth.
Hi Chris P,
I find it refreshing to see that you:
…think it is puzzling if the "repair marks" are on top of the Maybrick scratches, because it implies that a modern faker either deliberately put fake repair marks on top of the fake scratches - which seems a bit unlikely to me - or made these marks straightforwardly as part of the hoax, in which case they presumably have some connection with the murders that no one has ever worked out.
I wish you luck trying to fathom it out, because I can also see why it would make life simpler for the modern hoax believers if they could demonstrate that Dr Turgoose was wrong about the order in which the marks were made.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Just a reminder,
Citing a name, any name, is not an answer to either a long list of unlikely and inexplicably simultaneous coincidences that would be necessary for this text to be anything other than a modern hoax nor is it a valid response to simple, common sense logic and reading.
No one, including Keith, has ever come here and proposed any specific solid, evidenced scenario that has any old hoaxer seeing the line from the police report or writing any number of other of the problem lines in the diary.
Until they do, here or somewhere, the case for an old hoaxer has not even begun to be made -- it doesn't exist -- unlike the obvious and thoroughly detailed case for the modern hoaxer, which has been made in the dissertations section and in the archives in significant detail, whether Caroline or Keith or anyone else likes it or not. At least it's there, unlike the case for an old hoax.
And, incidentally, no one has yet "demonstrated" that Dundas "was wrong" about when the marks were made either.
Where we have long been,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
But Caz,
why would we want to try and demonstrate Turgoose is wrong? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
You tell me.
But that's exactly what certain modern hoax conspiracy theorists are trying to do around here. I don't know why they would be scared stiff of anything Turgoose saw, or the order in which the scratches were made. But they keep dragging in Dundas and his sworn statement, complete with its obvious errors, as if he can save the day. So something's evidently worrying them.
Hi John,
I'm happy with the case that has thus far been made for the modern hoaxer. Theories are put up to be debated, questioned and challenged. Occasionally they are torn down. Occasionally they are proven and become accepted history.
But the confident theorist should be happy while theirs lives on, and should have no problem with puppies snapping at their ankles on internet message boards, or experienced investigator hounds digging for non-existent bones in other places. Indeed, the confident theorist should welcome the attention and publicity and help with proving him/her correct.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1927
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
what obvious errors?
no really, you are prioritising the science over the sworn statement of someone who saw the watch before its alleged scratched state become known, odd that you would do that. it's almost like you want Dundas to be wrong.
are you saying they must be right and Dundas despite his sworn affidavit (which incidentally is important because it relies on more than his word, its got a bit more weight behind it) must be lying?
isnt the affidavit to prove he wasnt lying?
perhaps you could enlighten me with a point by point assessment of why Dundas' sworn affidavit has obvious errors??
just curious been as how it can be used in a court of law and all.
thanks in advance, i know you'll be only to happy to clear this up.
Jenni
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris
But that's exactly what certain modern hoax conspiracy theorists are trying to do around here. [demonstrate that Dr Turgoose was wrong about the order in which the marks were made]
I have explained several times that I am not claiming he is wrong about this.
I am asking if anyone else can see any evidence for this conclusion in the micrographs.
Apparently no one can.
That's fine, but in the interests of accuracy, when people are referring to the priority of the scratches, I hope they will preface their statements with "Turgoose says" or something similar, rather than treating it as a demonstrable fact.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Chris,
Someday perhaps Caroline will understand the question you are asking and have been asking for months now. Her last post reveals she still hasn't read it.
Also, she writes,
"I'm happy with the case that has thus far been made for the modern hoaxer."
So am I. It's certainly much better than the case that has never been made for an old hoaxer, since that one doesn't even exist, here or anywhere else that I have ever seen. Until someone finally sits down and details it in some careful, thorough, analytic, and evidenced way, as has been done here on the Casebook for the modern hoax theory, there is simply no comparison.
We talk a lot about the modern hoax theory here. We don't talk much about the specifics of the old-hoax theory, because no one has ever made the case, constructed the necessary scenarios, or cited the evidence (if it exists).
You can't really talk about something that's so far just a vague dream and a series of prayers, excuses, and unlikely and inexplicable coincidences.
Maybe someday,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
John,
you know you shouldn't say things like that - you are asking for trouble!
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1931
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
Ok,
this is difficult because i don't believe it, but I am always up for a challenge!
The specifics of the old hoax theory as i understand it.
Watch,
this one is easy since the Wild report dates the watch back at least several tens of years (ie before 1973).
Diary,
in no particular order:-
Poste House,
the diarist meant somewhere else referred to as the post house (we already know they cant spell poste).
Mrs Hammersmith:-
same as with modern hoax theory.
O Costly.
ok as far as i understand it it goes a little something like this.
just because its in the sphere book doesnt mean it has to be the source. by chance the old hoaxer knew and used this exact same line.
the miracle in Liverpool Library happened.
Left them...
the old hoaxer got this information wrong because he got it from old newspaper reports which also get it wrong.
One ring, two a farthing etc (sic)
ditto
FM/intial here etc
don't know [i say don't know but perhaps i mean not convinced, perhaps it goes a little something like this, the diarist meant something else, or they could see the initls on the photo before anyone else noticed them]
Handwriting
wrong because the old hoaxer was not James Maybrick.
Tin match Box empty
don't know [again actually i do know, someone eg the police the coroner, had access to the information so thats where they got it from either that or its a mazing chance just as it would be if it were genuine]
Verse
same mistake as modern hoax theory
Umm..sure i've missed something
oh well
thats basically saying it rests on tin match box and FM!
Jenni
ps images of an elderly hoaxer now running through my head!
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
If by "trouble" you mean someone finally comes here and writes some sort of detailed, evidenced, careful account of an old-hoax theory (as has already been done for the modern theory), that someone finally puts a complete and believable old-hoax theory down somewhere so it can be examined, then I look forward to the trouble.
But perhaps that's not what you meant.
--John
PS: Jenni. Just saw your brave attempt. Thanks. It's not exactly like what we have over on the dissertations page explaining the problems via a modern forger, is it? Perhaps someday that sort of case will be made, if possible.
(Message edited by omlor on February 17, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
i think its become apparent what i meant! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 4:29 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
You recently suggested a scenario in which the repair/pawn marks seen by Dundas could have been the H 9/3 and 1275, which in turn were seen by Murphy, who tried to polish them out, and that a hoaxer later made the ripper related scratches over these marks. You suggested that this would make sense of the conflicting testimony given by Dundas and Murphy.
If this had been a serious suggestion, your scenario would naturally have depended on Turgoose getting the order the wrong way round.
But you have now made it clear that this was merely idle speculation, and that you have yet to decide whether Turgoose could have made such an error.
Hi Jenni,
Any Tom, Dick or Harry can make a sworn statement - even a Michael. And even the most upright and conscientious witness is not infallible. It's not like waving a magic wand of truth over what someone says. And in Mike's case, it doesn't add an ounce of weight.
Be that as it may, we can, and should, all presume that Dundas is the most decent, honest citizen any of us could hope to meet, because none of us have met the man and we don't know the first thing about him, apart from the fact that he serviced watches in 1992. That doesn't magic away any errors he made.
Now then, I have already described, several times now, a major error that Dundas made. He was not asked about ripper related scratches 'a month or so' after he had serviced Albert's watch, as he stated. It was over a year later. If you don't accept that Dundas made an error here, then please explain how Murphy could have been talking about these scratches in 1992, before Albert even bought the watch. That would make no sense at all.
Assuming you can finally see that Dundas did get his timing completely wrong, then you must also be able to appreciate the fact that swearing to something in writing does not automatically guarantee its accuracy; it couldn't possibly.
If you still don't get it, ask John to explain it to you more simply. I've done my best.
Now then, have you made up your mind who to give priority to? Drs Wild and Turgoose, for both thinking the scratches dated back several decades? Murphy, who believes the ripper related scratches are the ones he tried to minimise? Or Dundas, for stating they weren't there when he serviced the watch?
You don't seem all that sure. One minute you think whatever Dundas stated should be beyond question, the next you seem open to the possibility that the marks were there in the 1970s.
If you are not certain either way, how do you expect me to be?
But if, unlike me, you are able finally to make up your mind, perhaps you could share your reasoning with me.
Thanks.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I've already made my position clear several times.
I doubt anyone still reading this is fooled by your evasions. I'm certainly not going to waste time correcting you yet again.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Caroline writes to Jenni,
"If you still don't get it, ask John to explain it to you more simply. I've done my best."
That was just sad.
First the comparison between Barrett and Dundas and now a remark like this.
I think I may leave here for awhile. Nothing is getting done and things are turning even uglier than normal.
The obvious conclusions, friends, are still there for everyone to see. And it is clear what needs to be done to resolve the conflicts that do exist.
I'll leave it at that.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1986
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Caz,
ok, ok,
Stupid bloody Maybrick items i say nothing but bloody trouble.
Jenni
"Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 848
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
So just for ***** and giggles I have been pondering switching teams. You know, testing my reasoning ability by arguing against the modern hoax theory. See if I can convince myself, that there is a possibility that they were old hoaxes (I will never be convinced that they are real, my reasoning can't be bent to that degree), but giving it a whirl none the less.
Mostly because the diary threads have just become mind-numbingly repetitive, and I need something to spark my interest. Wouldn't it be interesting if everyone switched sides for a week and argued the other way?
Home with the flu and bored out my mind,
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 42
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Hello, and Good Afternoon everyone.
I've been very busy this year and have spent very little time on JTR. Serious question this, but has there been ANY developments in the diary? Obviously it hasn't been proved real (as if it ever will be!) but have I missed anything?
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 850
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Hello Lee,
Don't want to leave you hanging here. Nope there has been nothing new and all concerned have talked themselves into exhaustion.
|
estephanc
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
I'm eternally grateful for posters in this thread for clearing a very important distinction up for me. On the one hand "at least several tens of years" is infinite with respect to time, or at least 10 or 12 is within the limits, but on the other "month or so" is quite finite and means a single month and certainly would not stretch to 10 or 12.
My most sincere thanks,
Eugene |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1516
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
Hope you're feeling better. I've only had flu twice, the last time back in the early 80s, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
GMTV's resident doc, Hilary Jones (we call him Dr Tickly Bones) gave a neat definition the other day for anyone who thinks they may have flu:
Imagine you see a £10 note on the pavement outside your window. If you have a bad cold you will still be able to leave your sickbed to pocket the cash; if it's flu you won't.
Hi Eugene,
Welcome to the Omlor-Phillips School of Time Studies, where "at least several tens of years" can be whittled down to "no more than a few weeks" with a few well-chosen words like "preliminary" and "speculative", while the impossible "month or so" statement can be pushed under the carpet and that carpet used to smother me with John's righteous indignation.
I see John has used it as his excuse to go off in a huff, so he doesn't have to address my question concerning the viability of Dr Wild's recommended comparisons between the watch and several standards of gold and brass 'known' to have been kept in similar conditions.
John knows perfectly well why I had to use a hammer, in the form of Mike Barrett's sworn statements, to crack a nut. It was because he was happily ignoring the parts of Dundas's statement that were clearly unreliable, and feeding Jenni's misconceptions about accepting anything sworn under oath as true, even when they are shown to be patently untrue.
John's little display of moral outrage on Dundas's behalf might have been admirable had it not been so blatantly contrived, misplaced and insincere, that no discerning reader could have failed to see it for exactly what it was.
The reputations and professional expertise of Drs Turgoose and Wild could be buggered backwards with a fish fork for all John would care; Ron Murphy's testimony has been accelerated away from without a concerned backward glance on his part; and Albert, if not accused of being a liar or hoaxer, is left by John to be regarded as a fool who has allowed himself to be manipulated and tricked by one of his closest associates.
It's all a bit late for John to suddenly come over all shocked and saddened for Dundas, or claim he misread the intention behind the point I was making.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 27, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
Hi John,
Could you please stop sending me unsolicited emails. I responded courteously to each point you made in the first message following your recent decision not to post for a while, and you told me you didn't bother to read past my first sentence.
That's fine, because it saves me time and effort responding in future.
But, inexplicably, you continue to send me emails - two more at the last count - and I don't appreciate the one-way traffic system you think you can impose on me.
Thank you.
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Number three just came in my inbox - 11.37am UK time. Please stop, John, since there is no point in my responding.
Thank you.
Caz |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Number four arrived yesterday after I left for work.
John, you make it clear that you saw my two requests above, and chose to ignore them. Are you knitting with only one needle, or what?
You also say you will return to the boards if I, or anyone else, ever posts anything new or original here.
So let me just remind everyone here, including you, that my question, concerning the viability of Dr Wild's recommended tests on the watch, given that you don't know what conditions it has been kept in over the years, is as new and original now as the first time I posed it. (At least, I've never seen anyone else ask it here.) It's hardly my fault that you wouldn't even acknowledge it, let alone stick around to explain why you believe these tests are still perfectly possible in the circumstances.
You very rarely manage to tear yourself away from Diaryworld (the 'nothing new' argument never stopped you posting before), so you must have had a very good reason this time. Don't let people think it was because my new and original question defeated you - come back and address it soon.
I'll be waiting.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 01, 2005) |
Clarise
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Hi friends,
I dont wish to be a spoil sport here but this watch, claimed to be Marbrick's, is AN OBVIOUS HOAX!I think the europhoria generated by the dairy and the watch has made people hear what they want to hear, and not what is the truth.
I consulted a professional on watch and trophy engraving. It is an art - not any old hack can do it.I am 99.99% sure this drug addicted Maybrick did not do the engraving.This means, if he died in 1889, then he has taken to a pro to do it at the hight of the ripper's public attention, late 1888 or early 1889.I think the engraver would have have found it very odd that an individual wanted 5 sets of initials, who just happen to match the victims initials of the ripper.I would say he would have notified some authority- ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SUSPECT TIME IT WAS DONE.
The other question is why? From a psycholgical point of view it makes zero sense.I can tell you this for certain, by the time the ripper slayed Eddow's and then nuked Mary Kelly his mind was putty.He stopped , as most ripperologists agree on , because he took his own life or was incarcerated.I am sorry to tell Maybrick fans this, but the chances of him giving a stuff about a piece of delicate fine engraving on a watch, after Kelly's butchery, is about a million to one.From a psychologists view, this regression to fine detail at this stage of his decline doea not make sense. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 10:56 pm: |
|
".I am sorry to tell Maybrick fans this, but the chances of him giving a stuff about a piece of delicate fine engraving on a watch, after Kelly's butchery, is about a million to one."
I'm not a "Maybrick fan", but from the photos I've seen the scratches hardly look to be the work of a professional.
"He stopped , as most ripperologists agree on , because he took his own life or was incarcerated."
Yup, that's what people were saying about the BTK Killer as well.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 4:39 am: |
|
Hi Clarise,
Yep, I tend to agree.
'...the europhoria [sic] generated by the dairy [sic] and the watch has made people hear what they want to hear...' ie that it's 'AN OBVIOUS HOAX!'
Caz the Fairy Dairymaid
X
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
