|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 10:01 am: |       |
In accordance with the wishes of Albert Johnson, the owner of the 'Maybrick Watch', I am now posting a transcript of the text of the Turgoose and Wild reports he commissioned in 1993 and 1994.
In order to help publicise their availability on the Casebook, Albert has been interviewed for an article, which was published in yesterday’s Daily Mail newspaper.
I will be discussing with Stephen Ryder how best to place facsimiles of the reports (together with accompanying figures etc) in the appropriate section of the Casebook.
Report on Engravings on Watch
Dr S. Turgoose MA PhD
Corrosion and Protection Centre
UMIST
10th August 1993
The views expressed in this document are those of the author alone. This document does not express the views of UMIST or of the Corrosion and Protection Centre.
Introduction
The aim of the study described below was to attempt to define the age of the engravings in the watch. From the outset it was not expected to be possible to provide definitive ages of the engravings, but an initial visual observation had indicated that it might be possible to discuss relative ages of the various markings and come to an opinion regarding the likely ages.
Experimental Studies
This report is of a scanning electron microscope examination of the inside of the back of the watch. This was to provide more detailed (higher magnification) visual observations with the possibility of elemental analysis at selected points. Photograph 1 attached shows a photograph of the inside of the watch, provided by Mr Johnson, and on the accompanying photocopy of this the regions of the other photographs are indicated.
Also indicated on this copy is the region (shaded) which it was not possible to examine due to the presence of the glass front still attached to the watch back. The presence of the glass has also compromised the resolution of some photographs and the quantification of analytical data, since the sample had to be further from the detector lenses than would have been desired. Nonetheless, significant information has been obtained.
Results
Micrograph 2 shows a low magnification view of the centre of the watch and the inscriptions. The horizontal marking, which is not apparent on the Photograph 1, is part of the large ‘J’. This, and particularly the expanded view in Micrograph 3, show that the ‘9/3’ was written after the horizontal line, and also that the superficial scratches are of later origin. An important observation arises here, will be seen in the other micrographs, and also in other regions examined but not photographed. The markings identified to me as ‘am J’ and ‘maybrick’ are the earliest visible markings. All others overlay these where crossing does occur. Also all the superficial scratches are later than all the engraving. This can be clearly seen in Micrograph 3 where the random superficial scratches go across the engravings.
Another feature which will also be apparent in other regions is that there is very little evidence of ‘mounding’ of metal on either side of the horizontal marking, and that the scratch marks on the bottom of the engraving are very indistinct. The heavier markings such as the ‘/’ shown vertically in Micrograph 3 show a degree of mounding but nonetheless a significant degree of smoothing of the surface of the mounds. The superficial scratches, however, appear to have sharp edges showing little smoothing.
From the central region Micrograph 4 shows that the ‘5’ is inscribed across the ‘J’, with other features as described above.
Micrograph 5 shows the central region of the ‘copper plate H’ showing similar features.
In the lower portion of the watch the ‘y’ is shown in Micrograph 6, with higher magnification in Micrograph 7. This shows that in places the engraving has been completely polished out, again indicating significant wear since the engraving.
Elsewhere one of the tick marks, Micrograph 8, again shows smoothing of the mounds and crossing superficial scratches.
Interesting features were seen in examination of the ‘a’, Micrograph 9, and ‘k’, Micrograph 10. Particles were seen in the bases of the scratches. These particles were of very similar appearance, although I regret that Micrograph 10 is not too clear on this, and the both gave only copper and zinc in X-ray analysis in the scanning electron microscope. It would seem that they are brass particles and appear to have come from the inscribing tool. One feature of these is that they appear to have corroded surfaces, and again this may suggest some significant time since they were deposited.
Observations can also be made regarding the variety of implements used for the engravings. The ‘am J’ and ‘maybrick’ show no differences. The ‘1275’ used a different tool and a different one again was used for the ‘H 9/3’. The tick mark used yet another. The implement used for the ‘ac’ and ‘mk’ was different again but could have been the same for the two cases.
Since it was felt that fresh scratches might have a different surface composition from the older surface elemental analysis was carried out in and close to the base of the ‘5’, points A and B in Micrograph 11. Within the limits of resolution the compositions at both these points is similar, and consistent with 18 carat gold, so no conclusions can be drawn from these analyses.
Conclusions
On the basis of the evidence above, especially the order in which the markings were made, it is clear that the engravings predate the vast majority of superficial surface scratches (all of those examined).
The wear apparent on many of the engravings, evidenced by the rounded edges of the markings and the ‘polishing out’ in places would indicate a substantial age for the engravings. The actual age would depend on the cleaning or polishing regime employed, and any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation. Given these qualifications I would be of the opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer.
However, whilst there is no evidence which would indicate a recent (last few years) origin of the engravings, it must be stressed that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings. They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multistage process, using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing or artificial wearing stages. Also, many of the observed features are only resolved by the scanning electron microscope, not being readily apparent in optical microscopy, and so if they were of recent origin the engraver would have had to be aware of the potential evidence available from this technique, indicating a considerable skill, and scientific awareness.
Report on Engravings on Watch
Dr S. Turgoose MA PhD
Corrosion and Protection Centre
UMIST
23rd August 1993
The views expressed in this document are those of the author alone. This document does not express the views of UMIST or of the Corrosion and Protection Centre
Introduction
The main aim of this study was to further reveal the markings on the watch, via low magnification scanning electron microscope pictures.
Observations
The presence of the glass has compromised the resolution of some photographs, but it was possible to image most of the surface. The locations on the watch are described by orientations with the hinge for the glass cover at 9 o’clock.
The low power photographs (1-9) are mostly at a magnification of about 14 to 1, with 1 millimetre scale bars indicated. These photographs have been left unmounted since they form views of overlapping regions. They are numbered on the reverse and the locations on the watch are indicated on the attached sketch. 1 to 8 form a view of the region between 8 and 4 o’clock, although 7 and 8 are at slightly different magnification. Photograph 9 is the region at 2 o’clock.
Photographs 10 and 11 are slightly higher magnifications of regions of 1 (with parts of 6 and 7).
Conclusions
The photographs above reveal in more detail the markings. There is also no evidence here to contradict the previously expressed opinion, regarding the possible age of the engravings, although the investigations here were intended to reveal more general features, and not the detail required to form such an opinion.
IAC/93/013
31 January 1994
Surface Analysis of a Gold Watch
Comparison of Original Surface & Scratch Marks
RK Wild
Interface Analysis Centre
Bristol University
Report prepared for Mr A Johnson
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes some analysis carried out on a gold watch that was manufactured in the middle of the 19th century and which had some markings engraved on it. It was hoped that by analysing the surface of the original watch and the base of the scratch that an indication could be given of the date when the engraving had been made. The technique of scanning Auger microscopy (SAM) combined with argon ion depth profiling has been used to determine the surface composition as a function of depth. The amount of time the watch was available for examination was limited to only a few hours and as a result a thorough investigation was not possible and any conclusions are therefore preliminary at this stage.
2. SCANNING AUGER MICROSCOPY
The specimen surfaces are analysed using a technique known as Auger electron spectroscopy. In this technique the surface is bombarded with a focused beam of electrons with energy ranging from 2-10keV. This ionises atoms in the surface by ejection of an inner shell electron. The atom then rearranges with an electron, from an outer shell, falling into the initial hole. This releases energy which may be transferred to a third electron, which, if it has sufficient energy may be ejected from the surface. The energy of the Auger electron is given by:
EAuger = E1 - E2 - E3 - f
where E1, E2, E3 are electron shell energies and f is the surface work function.
This energy is unique to each atom and, thus, by determining the Auger electron energy the surface atom may be identified.
The Auger electron is energy analysed using either a cylindrical mirror analyser (CMA) or a hemispherical electrostatic analyser (HSA). The Perkin-Elmer PHI 595 has a CMA. A spectrum is obtained by counting the number of electrons in each channel within a predetermined range and can be displayed as raw data or massaged by computer. Most Auger electrons have energies from 0-2000eV which can only escape from the material if they originate in the top few atom layers. The technique is therefore highly surface sensitive.
3. EXPERIMENTAL
The engravings were on the back of the watch which was made from 18 carat gold. It had a diameter of approximately 4.5cm and was concave with the edges standing approximately 1cm proud of the base. The engravings were on the concave surface. This case was too large to be introduced to the spectrometer via the normal insertion port and since it could not be cut to size the spectrometer was vented to nitrogen, a side port with 200mm diameter was removed, and the case was attached to the specimen stage using copper wire. The port was then replaced and the system pumped down to a pressure of 1.10 -7 torr. Ideally the pressure should be <10 -9 torr but in the time available it was not possible to pump further. An area was then identified using the secondary electron image, which contained an engraving with a particle in the base and some original surface (Figures 1 and 2). Three points were identified on this area for detailed analysis. Point 1 was from the original surface, point 2 from the particle and point 3 from the base of the scratch. Auger spectra were then recorded from these points before and after surface etching.
RESULTS
The watch surface was heavily contaminated with hydrocarbons which were present as a result of prolonged exposure to the environment and handling. As a result the initial spectra only identified carbon and oxygen. The surface was therefore ion etched for 3 minutes which would remove approximately 100nm of the surface. Spectra were then recorded from three points; one on the watch surface (point 1), one on the brass particle (point 2) and one at the base of the engraving (point 3). Spectra from the watch surface (point 1), and the base of the engraving (point 3) are shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively. These both contain peaks from gold at 60eV, carbon at 270eV, silver at 350eV, oxygen at 510eV and copper at 920eV. The initial etch did not clean the brass particle surface and only carbon and oxygen were detected. The spectrometer was then set to record the peak intensities from points 1-3 while the surface was ion etched for a further 20 minutes, during which time approximately 600mm would be removed. Gold was not included in these profiles because the peak at 60eV sits on a steeply sloping background. These profiles are reproduced as Figure 5(a-c). It can be seen that profiles from points 1 and 3, the original surface and the base of the engraving, are similar. Carbon decreases rapidly with first silver and then copper increasing. The profile for point 2, the particle, shows no indication that the metal has been reached by the completion of the profile. Following the profile full spectra were recorded from these three points and these are reproduced as Figures 6(a-c). These show that there is still contamination on the surface as evidenced by the carbon peak at 270eV. However, spectra (a) and (c), points 1 & 3 respectively, both show gold and silver peaks of similar peak height and the presence of some copper. The particle shows the appearance of peaks from zinc around 1000eV. The area was then etched for a further 20 minutes, 43 minutes in total, and spectra recorded from these points once again. Again the spectra from points 1 and 3 were similar showing a further enhancement of gold at the expense of silver although some copper was still detected. The spectrum from point 2 still shows contamination although now the oxygen and zinc peaks have increased relative to the carbon. At this point this investigation was terminated.
DISCUSSION
It is the purpose of this investigation to attempt to estimate when the engraving was made on the surface of the gold watch. Two approaches are possible using surface analytical techniques. One involves analysing the two surfaces to determine if the composition varies with depth in the same or different ways on the engraved surface from the original surface. The other involves determining the amount of corrosion on the brass particles embedded in the engraved areas and attempting to estimate the length of time the particle would have to be exposed to give that level of corrosion.
The spectra from the gold surface and the engraved surface appear to indicate that the surface composition does indeed vary with depth. Silver appears to be enriched near to the surface with the concentration decreasing with depth. The rate of change of silver with depth appears to be similar on the original gold surface and the surface of the engraving, although the silver concentration at the base of the engraving appears to be slightly higher than on the watch surface. If this enrichment of silver occurs over a long period of time then this result would indicate that the engraving is of an age comparable with that of the watch. However, if this enrichment occurs in a short time scale and then stabilises nothing could be said about the age of the engraving. More work needs to be done to resolve this.
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This could explain why the silver enrichment at the base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch surface and would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years.
The particles embedded in the base of the engraving are brass from the engraving tool (Ref. Turgoose, 1993). The particle investigated is very heavily contaminated and appears to have been considerably corroded. In this investigation the etching process, which was continued for some 45 minutes, only began to reveal zinc oxide. This suggests that the particle has been embedded in the surface for some considerable time.
This discussion has assumed that the watch has remained at or close to room temperature throughout its life. The changes observed here would then indicate that the engravings were of some considerable age. Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment it would seem likely that the engravings were of several tens of years age. This would agree with the findings of Turgoose (1993) and in my opinion it is unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged brass particles into the base of the engraving.
To give an accurate date to the watch from its surface composition and from the brass particles embedded in the base of the scratches it would be necessary to analyse several standards of known age, encompassing the age of the watch to recent time, of both brass and gold which had been known to have been exposed to similar conditions. This would involve a considerable amount of work.
CONCLUSION
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is at least several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
REFERENCES
Turgoose S, 1993, Scanning electron microscopy examination of Engraving on Watch
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 874
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Excellent,
That explains the sudden appearance of the newspaper articles (though not the excited rhetoric of "new" results within them).
A fascinating document. The last two paragraphs of the Wild report-- including the one called "CONCLUSION" -- say it all.
Thanks,
--John (a very happy reader)
PS: Does it trouble anyone that the following paragraph was included in a report written ten years ago and it STILL accurately describes the state of the investigation?
"The amount of time the watch was available for examination was limited to only a few hours and as a result a thorough investigation was not possible and any conclusions are therefore preliminary at this stage."
(Message edited by omlor on November 24, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on November 24, 2004) |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Hi Caroline,
I haven't had a chance to read the reports yet but will do tonight. However I already have a couple of questions for you.
1) Why the release of these reports now?
2) Was the Daily Mail led to believe that there was new edvidence, when clearly the conclusion of the Wild report has been known for some time?
3) Has Paul Fledman got plans to have a re-issue of "The Final Chapter" to come out soon?
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
It troubles me that some people think the sort of money Albert would require (in order to satisfy the feigned curiosity of those who already believe the scratches must have been hoaxed just weeks before the watch was first tested) grows on trees.
Sorry, Lee, you were saying... 
You will see that my post on the other watch thread coincidentally answers your questions 1) and 2) to the best of my knowledge.
I have no idea what Paul Feldman may or may not be planning, but I don't know of any recent contact between him and Albert.
And in case anyone is wondering, the appearance of the Mail article has no connection whatsoever with 'the' ongoing investigation in London and Liverpool which Keith Skinner suggested I mention on the boards earlier this year.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Caz,
its official, I have suspended my disbelief!
Jenni
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Hi Caroline,
I am not having a wonderful day am I?
I wrote those questions that you had answered on the other thread even before I had seen that thread, so my sincere apologies.
By the way, this is the first time I have ever had a "chat" with you on this board. Although I am very sceptical about the diary I really enjoyed "The Inside Story" which I received as a birthday present.
Best Wishes,
Lee
PS: I will check the required books tonight regarding the amount of initals!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 875
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
So, for over ten years the investigation has remained explicitly incomplete and "preliminary." And the only trouble Caroline has is that the people who suggest that this is a less than responsible way to do science aren't sensitive enough to Albert's finances.
Yes, no wonder everyone believes in this tale...
Amazed, as always, at the sense of intellectual thoroughness and rigorous responsibility to the truth that accompanies all things Maybrick related,
--John
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 72
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Hi Caz
I'm pleased to see you've done it at last. I know you've shed buckets of blood and sweat to get these reports finally published, so thanks a lot for all your efforts.
We can all sit back and watch the fun now whilst "explanations" are found for how Albert managed to get those scratches there before he even bought the watch!
Good on ya Caz
Paul |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Can someone please confirm this year for me ?
The year we are now actually in !
Many thanks
Marty McFly
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 876
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Monty,
Since every year in Diary World looks the same, you can never really tell.
To read the discussion that will soon follow, please see the archives.
Firing up the Delorean,
--John
"...a thorough investigation was not possible..."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
I'd love to act responsibly and 'do' the science required to satisfy my real, and other people's feigned curiosity, but my purse won't let me. 
What's up Monty?
It was only earlier this year that Albert was asked if he would mind us all having a butchers at the reports he forked out for. I wonder how much more grief he is going to get from the terminally sceptical armchair huggers, now he has been able to give them what they asked for?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Caroline tells us,
"It was only earlier this year that Albert was asked if he would mind us all having a butchers at the reports he forked out for."
Of course, it's been over ten years since he was told,
"The amount of time the watch was available for examination was limited to only a few hours and as a result a thorough investigation was not possible and any conclusions are therefore preliminary at this stage."
and
"To give an accurate date to the watch from its surface composition and from the brass particles embedded in the base of the scratches it would be necessary to analyse several standards of known age, encompassing the age of the watch to recent time, of both brass and gold which had been known to have been exposed to similar conditions. This would involve a considerable amount of work."
and
"...it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work."
So any discussion here, like these results, will necessarily be neither new nor complete.
That's where we (still) are,
--John
PS: Seriously, I'm curious, does anyone here actually believe that new comprehensive tests for the watch or new comprehensive tests for the diary are ever going to take place?
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 518
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
Perhaps it would be useful to repost the extracts from the earlier draft of Wild's report, posted on the old boards by Melvin Harris on 4 February 2001, and confirmed in a post by Shirley Harrison on 6 February, quoting an email from Dr Wild.
The third paragraph of the Discussion section originally read:
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This would suggest that the silver profile does form in a short period of time and that little can be said about the age of the scratches from this.
Compared with the corresponding paragraph in the version above:
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This could explain why the silver enrichment at the base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch surface and would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years.
[my emphasis]
And the Conclusion paragraph originally read:
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is probably greater than several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
Compared with the version above:
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is at least several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
[My emphasis again]
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Ok, Ok,
before we desend on each other like a bunch of 'terminally sceptical armchair huggers'. I have to hand it to Caz, and Albert Johnson too, becuase I never thought I would see the day when this would happen! so now I am happy. Happy happy. Happy that I am not being kept in the dark about watch reports (of half my age!)
Paul,
who said Albert Johnson forged the watch? (apart from you, know something we don't!!!!)
Monty,
this year is 2004. is that what you meant?
Chris P.
what are you implying!!??
Caz,
i reserve the right to be a sceptical armchair hugger of any desription at all times!!
Jenni |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
In accordance with the wishes of Albert Johnson, the owner of the 'Maybrick Watch', I am now posting a transcript of the text of the Turgoose and Wild reports he commissioned in 1993 and 1994.
Just as a matter of interest, is it still intended also to publish these reports in the Ripperologist, as originally advertised, or has that plan been dropped for some reason?
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Hi Chris
I don't know what plans we may have at Ripperologist about publishing the Turgoose and Wild reports. I'll find out from the chief.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Hi all
Following is the situation about Ripperologist's possible publication of the watch reports. It looks certain at this point that we will not be publishing them. Let me explain in detail.
Some months ago, we at Ripperologist had hoped to publish the Turgoose and Wild reports on their own. A little later, we had hopes of publishing them along with the benefit of an accompanying informed and expert analysis. However, the copyright holder refused us permission to publish the reports and has elected instead to release them on the Casebook. No permission has been given to Ripperologist to publish the reports. We probably will not be seeking permission, the bird having flown as it were.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 520
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 2:46 am: | |
Chris
Thanks for clarifying that the reason for the non-appearance of the reports was the refusal of the copyright holder.
I think the idea of accompanying the reports with an "informed and expert analysis" was a very good one. As we've seen on these boards, the interpretation of technical material by the layman (or woman) can be a hazardous business.
Now that the texts are finally available to all, I hope you'll go ahead with the idea of an article analysing them. The ideal would be to get some input from an academic chemist who could comment on the crucial points Wild was unsure about - the timescales for silver enrichment and brass corrosion.
Chris Phillips
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 4:42 am: | |
Caz,
Yes, yes kudos to Albert. He forked out his own cash....well done. Fantastic. I think your point has now been made.
....but the reports get us where ?
Proof that the watch is contemporary?
So?
Its the same arguement Patsy puts forward regarding the idea that Sickert wrote some JTR letters. Great, but it doesnt put the knife in James hand....nor does it the watch for that matter.
Ergo...this is pointless.....but well done to Albert, and I mean that.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
If I am being very honest I dont fully understand the science behind the reports. What is clear is that both reports suggest that the scratches were made at least "10 of years ago" but further tests were needed. This was already in public knowledge.
As Monty says, yes it is fair to say that the watch and indeed the diary might be contempary, but that is very different from proving that they were the poccessions of Jack The Ripper.
For what it is worth I think that the diary and the watch scratches were created between 1888 and the late 1930's. As I have said above, I dont fully understand the science but I think that the report not saying "at least 100 years" is very vital.
I dont think it matters who "faked" the diary but proving it to be fake is important. The forger could have been a number of people.
A Policeman who worked in the Whitechapel area and then Liverpool.
A Press reporter who worked on both cases.
Dr Dutton or a close associate.
Donald Mccormick or a close associate.
The truth is that there are too many people around the time of 1888-1943 (when Albert Johnson first alledgely saw the diary)who could have created the diary/watch scratches.
Lee
PS: Caroline, just out of curiousity, what sort of things are you and Keith Skinner looking at in the current "Invstigation" in London and Liverpool? Is there anything you can tell us at the moment?
Lee
(Message edited by lee on November 25, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
Monty,
proof the watch may be contemporary? Maybe....
I am still suspending my disbelief!
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 6:33 am: | |
Hi All,
If 'seriously curious' of Florida wishes to supply enough dosh to pay for these 'new comprehensive tests for the watch', including 'several standards of known age' required in order to give an 'accurate date' (ie to qualify the 'at least several tens of years old'), I'm sure Albert will be delighted do let the scientists have another crack at his watch.
Hi Chris P,
What is it about the words 'earlier draft' that you don't understand?
Why don't you ask Dr Wild what persuaded him to change the wording for the final version, if you are determined to make something of it?
You wrote:
As we've seen on these boards, the interpretation of technical material by the layman (or woman) can be a hazardous business.
Which is precisely why I'm so relieved that the technical material can now be interpreted by any expert interested enough to examine it for him or herself.
Hi Jenni,
According to Albert, his brother only knew about the watch's existence when Albert telephoned to tell him about the discovery of the scratches. It's not rocket science to work out who is directly implicated by anyone and everyone who fondly imagines that the scratches must have been hoaxed in May 1993.
Hi Monty,
You wrote:
Its the same arguement Patsy puts forward regarding the idea that Sickert wrote some JTR letters.
Who's talking about arguments and ideas here?
If you think the reports provide reasonable evidence (let's not jump the gun and call it proof yet, eh?) that the scratches are indeed several tens of years old, you are accepting, as does Albert, that he owns an old artefact naming James Maybrick as the ripper.
That's all.
It's entirely up to you how you deal with that, and how you then try to explain to yourself the existence of both diary and watch.
No one is claiming 'Case Closed' here, are they?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Hi Lee,
Albert Johnson never, to my knowledge, saw the diary before he brought the watch forward. I take it you mean Billy Graham, although 'allegedly' is correct.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you anything further about the ongoing investigation. Everything will be documented and verified before it gets to be discussed here, the reasons for which I'm sure you can appreciate.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
Caz,
his name is John. now we have cleared that up...
Sure - I agree with you about 1993.
oh and no ones ever claiming anything round here are they?
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on November 25, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 6:54 am: | |
and please help me what does several tens of years actually mean? |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 6:58 am: | |
Hi Caz,
I feel another one of those days coming again
Of course I meant Billy Graham not Albert Johnson, i am going mad!!
best Wishes,
Lee |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 878
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
Hi all,
In case anyone missed it, this very same discussion about the watch reports, phrases like "tens of years," the lack of finality of their conclusions, etc. has already taken place here at least three other times. The appearance of the reports has not and cannot change the tone or the particulars of that discussion, since the reports specifically announce, repeatedly, that they are partial and preliminary at best and that "a full investigation was impossible" given the fact that the scientists were never offered the full access to the material that would have been necessary for more definitive and informed conclusions.
So, indeed, nothing has changed.
As for raising test money, I have been that route before in Diary World, and I know how I believe it is likely to end. But for those who want to follow in my once naive and faithful footsteps, I would just say that when I originally sought pledges for new diary tests I was overwhelmed with how quickly and how generously people responded. The money is not the real problem.
Those who own these artifacts are the ones who have a responsibility to the truth, to the history they believe they own and to scientific rigor and the thoroughness of any investigation. The proper thing for them both to be doing is raising funds, organizing the the appropriate tests, and learning the truth.
It's as simple as that.
Otherwise, any claims they might wish to make about dates or authenticity are irresponsible, incomplete, and the expressions of simple desire rather than the results of complete and honest and thorough scientific data. And therefore, such claims are worth little or nothing.
Will such tests ever actually take place on either the watch or the diary?
It's been over a decade.
What do you think?
My name is,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 7:53 am: | |
John, (i thought that was your name!)
Yes I missed it!!
Jenni
ps forgive me i was only nine/ten when these reports were done! |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Hi Chris Phillips
Many thanks for your encouragement for Ripperologist to publish an expert analysis of the watch reports, which, as you and others have noted, are confusing for the layman.
As you state, "The ideal would be to get some input from an academic chemist who could comment on the crucial points Wild was unsure about - the timescales for silver enrichment and brass corrosion."
An informed analysis, i.e., input from an academic chemist, was precisely what we’d had in mind and what we were actively pursuing, hoping that at the very least we’d be able to explain a lot of the technical stuff more clearly and hopefully put some of the conclusions into a clearer context.
We need to assess the situation now that the reports are fully in the public domain and decide on our next step. Again, Chris, thank you for your input.
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1431
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Caz,
If you think the reports provide reasonable evidence (let's not jump the gun and call it proof yet, eh?) that the scratches are indeed several tens of years old, you are accepting, as does Albert, that he owns an old artefact naming James Maybrick as the ripper.
Er, no. Not at all. tens of years is amibigous, 10?, 20?, 30?, 80?, 90?, (certainly not 100 years though I note) how many is tens??
Like I said....this debate is pointless.
I think Id better leave right now....before I sink any deeper !
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
It's not entirely accurate to say that Albert Johnson is the watch's owner. "Shares" in the watch were given or sold to various parties, including one to a solicitor, and another to a mystery man who paid a rather substantial sum to Robbie Johnson. A good deal of profit was made off the watch.
Caz writes:
"According to Albert, his brother only knew about the watch's existence when Albert telephoned to tell him about the discovery of the scratches. It's not rocket science to work out who is directly implicated..."
It aint necessarily so. I, for one, tend to believe that the watch scratches are recently faked, while at the same time I've voiced skepticism that Albert was involved. A little psychology is in order. The key words are "according to Albert." Albert's statement has to be viewed in the light of the fact that his brother was released from a longish stint in prison and people were naturally suspicious of him. And why wouldn't they be? Albert himself stated that Robbie was involved in all sorts of shady operations, and some of the people there felt that Robbie was the one promoting the watch. And---importantly---it seems to me that when Albert made the statement alluded to by Caz he was directly responding to people who were wondering about Robbie (and this included Shirley Harrison). For all I know, Albert's statement is innaccurate---not a lie so much as a man who was stretching the facts in order that he didn't have to feel suspicious about a brother he loved. He could have been simply misremembering. I still find it highly important that Albert Johnson's original statement to the press be tracked down---the statement he made before the circus broke out and the waters were hopelessly muddied. Unfortunately, it's not in my power to track that statement down, although I know it exists. RP
I am also very intrigued by Chris Phillips' point. The two statements of Dr. Wild do seem to be saying two very different things--even though the main statement is obviously taken from the same source. An explanation seems to be in order. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
If you think the reports provide reasonable evidence (let's not jump the gun and call it proof yet, eh?) that the scratches are indeed several tens of years old, you are accepting, as does Albert, that he owns an old artefact naming James Maybrick as the ripper.
Let's not jump the gun indeed!
On my reading, the reports offer no scientific evidence at all that the scratches are "several tens of years old", only an unsupported and tentative opinion to this effect.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
What he has is an artefact naming James Maybrick as JTR. Now I just point this out because this is something we all agree on.(at least I thought it was?)
It seems we don't agree for example what the phrase tens of years old means (for the record I assume this means it must have been scratched in the 1970s). it seems for example we don't agree on whether the science involved was given enough time to give accurate results. it seems for example that we don't agree on whether it is opinion or science that the report is based on. it seems for example that we do not agree whether the report is the same as the report originally made to Albert Johnson ten years ago or if it has been updated.
We can't remember each others names.
I am a (terminally) sceptical 'armchair hugger'(in every sense). I wonder why these reports weren't published earlier. A lot earlier like before i reached my 12th birthday. Call me an ignorant terminally sceptical armchair hugger (and you are probably right) but this does not fill one with confidence. Sorry about that.
Monty,
what a good choice of song, I looked up the words (mainly it was bugging me WTF the song was) very apt particularly verse two!!
Anyway
Bye bye for now!!
Jenni
ps I am off to hug the nearest armchair whilst eating my hat!!
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
What is it about the words 'earlier draft' that you don't understand?
Why don't you ask Dr Wild what persuaded him to change the wording for the final version, if you are determined to make something of it?
For Mrs Morris's benefit, I'll just point out that I'm not going to get drawn into silly arguments regardless of the provocation - so she may as well not bother trying.
Dr Wild was indeed asked about this in 2001, and responded in an email which Shirley Harrison posted (on 6 February) on the old boards with his permission. It went as follows:
Shirley,
It does seem to rumble on doesn't it!
I have looked at my records and can find only one report. This report was written on my PC and would have been printed out using a laser jet printer, not a typwriter of any sort so I don't know what report(s) he has.
I have found in my records a first draft of the report with the relevant paragraph and conclusion
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This would suggest that the silver profile does form in a short period of time and that little can be said about the age of the scratches from this.
CONCLUSION
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is probably greater than several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
However my final report, issued with Report no IAC/93/013 is as below
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This could explain why the silver enrichment at the base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch surface and would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years
CONCLUSION
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is at least several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
The conclusions are the same in both reports.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Bob
So there you have it!
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 3:47 am: | |
This is my reaction to the Turgoose and Wild reports in a nutshell - insofar as they try to estimate the absolute ages of the scratches.
I do realise that these are only brief reports of limited observations, and that Wild in particular emphasises their preliminary nature. Probably in a full study the points discussed below would have been dealt with more satisfactorily. I suspect the authors would be rather embarrassed at the claims recently made about their work in the press, if they knew about them.
(A) TURGOOSE
(1) Since it was felt that fresh scratches might have a different surface composition from the older surface elemental analysis was carried out in and close to the base of the ‘5’, points A and B in Micrograph 11. Within the limits of resolution the compositions at both these points is similar, and consistent with 18 carat gold, so no conclusions can be drawn from these analyses.
Turgoose himself says no conclusion can be drawn from the elemental analysis.
(2) It would seem that they are brass particles and appear to have come from the inscribing tool. One feature of these is that they appear to have corroded surfaces, and again this may suggest some significant time since they were deposited.
Corrosion was observed, but not quantified, and no information is given about the time required for corrosion to develop. So it's not surprising that Turgoose can say nothing more quantitative than "may suggest some significant time".
See also (B2) below.
(3) The wear apparent on many of the engravings, evidenced by the rounded edges of the markings and the ‘polishing out’ in places would indicate a substantial age for the engravings. The actual age would depend on the cleaning or polishing regime employed, and any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation.
Turgoose observed only the relative ages of some of the scratches where they crossed one another. Logically, it's impossible to say anything about the absolute age of the scratches on this basis. As Turgoose admits, if the surface was artificially aged by polishing, the scratches could be recent.
(B) WILD
(1) The rate of change of silver with depth appears to be similar on the original gold surface and the surface of the engraving, although the silver concentration at the base of the engraving appears to be slightly higher than on the watch surface.
Wild originally hoped that he would be able to estimate the age of the scratches from differences in the surface silver enrichment between the scratches and the rest of the surface. The logic isn't explained clearly, but it seems clear that he expected to find lower levels of silver in the scratches. In fact, he found the opposite, and then tried to explain this by silver on the surface having been removed by polishing. In any case, he admits he doesn't know the timescale over which silver enrichment at the surface takes place.
It's clear that these silver enrichment measurements can't tell us anything about the age of the scratches, as Wild says in his original draft. (It's unfortunate that in the second draft he tries to make an estimate of the age of the scratches based on an illogical argument and apparently incorrect information about when the watch was polished.)
(2) The particle investigated is very heavily contaminated and appears to have been considerably corroded. In this investigation the etching process, which was continued for some 45 minutes, only began to reveal zinc oxide. This suggests that the particle has been embedded in the surface for some considerable time.
Perhaps the details will become clearer when the graphs are available, but the Results section reports the appearance of zinc after 23 minutes' etching, not 45. But this is a detail - the crucial point is that no information is given which would enable the thickness of the corrosion layer to be related to an absolute timescale. In fact, Wild admits he doesn't know this, because he says that in order to date the scratches, "it would be necessary to analyse several standards of known age ... of both brass and gold which had been known to have been exposed to similar conditions". So again, a vague statement ("some considerable time") is made, and in the original conclusion this becomes, without comment or justification, "probably greater than several tens of years". In the final version, the word "probably" is dropped. This isn't science.}
And after all, if these difficulties could be overcome, all we should have is an estimate of the age of the corrosion layer on the brass particle. As has been pointed out previously, there is nothing here inconsistent with a corroded brass tool having been used to produce the scratches recently.
One final point. In a full report, it would be nice to have some discussion of the possibility that the faker could have tried to age the scratches chemically. A Google search for "Antiquing solution" shows that products designed to do this are widely available.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:36 am: | |
Hi All,
Hi Jenni, Monty,
Jenni, you asked:
and please help me what does several tens of years actually mean?
Monty, you asked:
tens of years is amibigous, 10?, 20?, 30?, 80?, 90?, (certainly not 100 years though I note) how many is tens??
Glad to help out here. But if there is such difficulty in interpreting basic stuff like 'at least' and 'several tens', I'm not too confident that anyone here at present is qualified to start interpreting the scientific material!
Several tens of years old, to me, means an absolute minimum of three decades - or 30 years - stretching right up to 99 years, since I would describe ten decades as a century, rather than 'several decades'. But 'at least several tens', would then allow for going beyond 99 years.
Hi RJ,
You claim that 'a good deal of profit was made off the watch'. But how much has Albert shared in the profit to which you allude? And does profit automatically imply fraud in your book?
You 'tend to believe that the watch scratches are recently faked...'
On what scientific or circumstantial evidence? In order to make Robbie the 1993 forger of Albert's gold watch, you have to believe that Albert misremembered (or was less than honest, because you suggest he can't bear to admit that his brother could have known about the watch, stolen it from Albert's drawer, made the marks, put it back and waited for Albert to have occasion to take it out, examine the inside surface and make the discovery) when he told me again very recently (for the second time in fact) that Robbie didn't even know he'd bought a gold watch until the phone call telling him about the scratches.
It's all a bit vague, isn't it? Are you sure your 'evidence' isn't tainted by your belief that the diary is a modern fake, and based almost entirely on the convenience of Robbie having had, like Mike Barrett, a scallywag skeleton or two in his closet?
Hi John O,
I don't think Albert or Robert Smith are making any claims as such about authenticity. Albert simply accepts that he owns an old artefact, and is happy for you and everyone else to read the reports he paid for and decide for yourselves whether the evidence is convincing or not. If neither of his reports convince you, then nothing he could try to 'claim' would have any bearing on your opinion, would it?
Hi Chris P,
You suspect 'the authors [Turgoose and Wild] would be rather embarrassed at the claims recently made about their work in the press, if they knew about them'.
I'm sure the authors live in the real world and are therefore well aware that most of us take what the press gives us with a generous helping of salt.
I'm not so sure, however, that your comment, in the capacity of yet another layman attempting to interpret their reports: This isn't science, is likely to go down well.
Is it reasonable, even for laymen such as yourself and John, to interpret either report as suggesting that with considerably more work its conclusion could be reversed to:
The scratches would have been at most just a few weeks old when first examined?
If Shirley or Feldy had tried to pull a stunt like this, we'd all have wet ourselves laughing.
Excuse me while I go and change my drawers.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Then we do agree after all (but not with the daily Mail) that the watch must have been forged between the yrs 1901 and 1973 according to these reports?
We agree therefore James maybrick did not mark the watch but someone else did. (as dead men don't tell lies)
Glad to get this stuff sorted out at this early stage.
oh and yes cards on the table this wasnt what i was expecting but two scientists appear to agree on the matter,
Jenni |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
I'm not so sure, however, that your comment, in the capacity of yet another layman attempting to interpret their reports: This isn't science, is likely to go down well.
I think you are making unjustified assumptions about my qualifications and experience.
But I'm not claiming I have any more right than anyone else to comment on these reports. One doesn't need to have a Ph. D. - or to have worked as a research scientist - in order to see that the Wild's conclusions do not follow logically from the evidence presented in his report.
If you can see a chain of logic there, by all means outline it for the rest of us!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on November 26, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Caroline,
Please re-read Albert's comments in the Daily Mail article and Robert's comments in the Postscript to Shirley's book.
In fact, concerning these very reports, Robert once wrote, "Here, from an independent source, was yet more strong corroboration that the diary is genuine."
And in his recent interview, Albert assured us, "in my own mind, I have absolutely no doubt about who the Ripper was."
So if you still don't believe that they are making any claims as to date and authenticity, I can only conclude that it's the conflict between reading and desire that is the real culprit here in Diary World.
And that's why there's no real point discussing things here.
As for what should be happening with such items, I repeat, it's a simple question of responsibility and ethics. I still believe that those who own these artifacts are the ones who have a responsibility to the truth, to the history they believe they own and to scientific rigor and the thoroughness of any investigation. The proper thing for them both to be doing is raising funds, organizing the the appropriate tests, and learning the truth.
And I have not heard from anyone, anywhere who truly believes that either the watch or the diary will ever be thoroughly, properly retested by scientists who have unlimited access to the material they need to conduct a "full investigation."
And, frankly, that tells me plenty about both the people and the material.
I've read all of this discussion before. Chris has done an excellent job, but it's pointless until a full investigation is made possible and the results can get past the "preliminary" stage.
Going away again to wait for results that will no doubt never arrive,
--John (who has seen all these circles before and knows why they appear and reappear)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 8:51 am: | |
Ok guys come on lets agree to disagree or something before my armchair suffocates with all this hugging! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2004/573
i thought you lot might be intersted in that for some reason! |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
Hi all
"Several" to me connotes two or three. I have been North American Editor for Ripperologist for several years, means exactly what I say, not that I have been an editor a decade.
A definition from Webster's dictionary is "Several -- Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many. . ."
Therefore, for a scientist to say in 1993-1994 that something is "at least several tens of years old" only takes us to the 1970's or so, and due to the vagaries of not having had the artifact long enough to come to definite conclusions and unknowns about the chemicals, maybe this should be doubtful as a firm "conclusion" as well.
I thus think Caroline Morris is stretching things when she says, "Several tens of years old, to me, means an absolute minimum of three decades - or 30 years - stretching right up to 99 years, since I would describe ten decades as a century, rather than 'several decades'. But 'at least several tens', would then allow for going beyond 99 years."
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
1973 or before - is this not the case in relation to several Chris?
and anyway a hundred years from 1993/4 is still only 1893/4 when JAmes maybriCK had been dead five years - more than a hundered years cannot count as several tens surely that would mean over a hundred?
(Message edited by jdpegg on November 26, 2004)
(Message edited by jdpegg on November 26, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
Hi Jenn
I think there may be some confusion in this term "ten" which only means a decade, nothing more. When Wild says "at least several tens" he is only saying "at least several decades" which again, if we refer to the Webster's dictionary definition for "several" meaning at least two but not much more, would be going back from 1993-1994 to the 1970's or so, not a hundred years.
Thanks for pointing us to the University of Bristol news site. Interesting to see that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon in regard to this old news. 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
HI Chris
In other words so we're clear here, this reports shows the watch is fake, at least thats my interpretation of things. it certainly does not point to consistency.
Cheers
Jenni |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
I said in a post above that the important thing is that the report says "10's of years" and not "at least 100 years".
Of course those who push forward the diary and watch as genuine articles of James Maybrick and that he was Jack the Ripper will insist that "several 10's of years" takes us to 1888. It doesn't. As Chris George says the word "Several" means "Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many. . ."
Now as I have admitted, I dont understand the science behind the tests. However I do understand that those who performed the tests can be considered to be quite intelligent. Therefore if they meant "at least 100 years" they would have said that rather than "several 10's of years".
Best Wishes,
Lee
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Hi Jenn
No the scientific findings don't show the watch to be a fake. The two scientists have given their best opinion on the age of the scratchings in the watch, but as I see it those opinions are ambiguous. They indicate that the scratches are at least several decades old but that's not saying the scratches are a hoax or the true bill... even if they are old, at any rate, it does not say Maybrick was Jack.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 11:26 am: | |
Sorry let me rephrase that when i say fake, i mean in the sense that it was not scratched from beyond the grave by james Maybrick! |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
Hi Jenn
If the etchings were scratched from beyond the grave by James Maybrick, that really would be something. Time to call in Tom Slemen I should think.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
Chris
Yes i would imagine so!!
Jenni |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
