 |
The full text of the Turgoose and Wild reports on the scientific analyses of the alleged 'Maybrick Watch' were posted to the Casebook on 6 January 2005, courtesy of Caroline Morris. They can be found at: http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/watchreport.html
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:30 am: |       |
SirRobertAnderson
As I've said, all I wanted to do was to make it clear that Turgoose didn't use those phrases.
I don't understand why people are so eager to analyse the words he used in his conclusion in such minute detail, when we have his own description of the observations they are based on.
I don't see how his observations could justify the inference you are trying to draw. Do you?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 05, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:39 am: | |
PS: Just in case anyone truly thinks I was being deliberately deceitful when I employed a bit of hyperbole as a rhetorical device in claiming that "Everyone here knows these things are both hoaxes" -- I deliberately wrote the claim again on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:39 am and even included a little smiling guy with devil horns attached to it. I don't know. Maybe I am overestimating a certain portion of my audience after all.
--John (who doesn't really believe he is, and suspects that Caroline and Alan's gasping umbrage is just a dramatic and rhetorical device of their own, for reasons having strictly to do with our sadly ongoing and irrelevant power dance here) |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:44 am: | |
"I don't understand why people are so eager to analyse the words he used in his conclusion in such minute detail, when he have his own description of the observations they are based on."
Well, I understand it. The Diary is on awfully shakey ground, to put it mildly, and the Watch is offered as a key piece of corroborating evidence. What Turgoose has to say is critical to the case, and he is writing in legalese/academic terms.
Is he saying the Watch is a fake? No.
He is saying that it doesn't appear to be recently scratched, unless it is a very skillful forgery.
For the life of me, I don't see how his statement can be taken otherwise. He's NOT saying the watch proves Maybrick is the Ripper, nor is he saying he knows for sure when the scratches were done.
I think Beggs is correct in his interpretation of the remarks.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:13 pm: | |
All I can do is repeat what I said:
I don't understand why people are so eager to analyse the words he used in his conclusion in such minute detail, when he have his own description of the observations they are based on.
I don't see how his observations could justify the inference you are trying to draw. Do you?
Chris Phillips
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:26 pm: | |
Chris, I'd love to say that's what makes discussions useful, but simply repeating your post ain't advancing the ball.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:34 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I'll take a break for a moment from chatting with the Drama King and Queen (who never play rhetorical games themselves or use figural language like "an academic mind on holiday" and who like to confuse simple rhetorical figures with "lies" and "jokes") and jump in here to try and clarify your point to Sir Robert.
If I understand what you are saying, you are suggesting that if we read the actual OBSERVATIONS Turgoose recounts, that is, exactly what he says he saw, then there's no need to parse his deliberately speculative and non-definitive conclusions to death, because we can judge for ourselves what his observations, as he describes them, tell us.
And so we can do the work. We can read his observations and then decide for ourselves what we think is fair to conclude from them and from his cautious concluding sentences.
Yes?
(Or perhaps I'm just being deceitful here too and deliberately trying to mislead everyone about what you are saying.  )
Thought I'd give it a shot, even though it is not likely to make any difference,
--John
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:55 pm: | |
"there's no need to parse his deliberately speculative and non-definitive conclusions to death, "
It does appear that there is a difference of opinion as to what Turgoose meant by his statement.
Is that fair to say?
And what piece of "evidence" in the JtR case hasn't been 'parsed to death'? Is this one supposed to be off limits?
(Message edited by sirrobert on January 05, 2005)
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:17 pm: | |
Personally, I'm happy to believe that Turgoose meant what he said, and leave it to others to speculate on what might have been in his mind beyond that.
You've given us several speculations in the last couple of days, one of which ("skilful") is stated by Turgoose, but the others of which are not.
The more important point is the one I keep making - Why speculate when we can read about the actual observations on which Turgoose's conclusions are based?
Among those observations, what can you see that could justify the conclusion that a fake would be "unlikely", "really great", or even "skilful"?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 05, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi All,
I've a feeling I'm going to regret this, but John wrote:
I only write what I feel I know is true based on the evidence.
I hope he meant that he only ever writes (even here on the internet where he doesn't believe professionalism is required, or even desirable) what he feels he knows is true based on the evidence.
But it matters not, since what I am about to write may be a useful exercise in clarifying for other readers what else John would need to know, before he could be certain that the watch is the modern hoax he feels he already knows it to be. Unfortunately, as he was fond of saying himself, we will all be dead before a new scientific report confirms the scratches to be recent. (Take that any way you like.  ) So he needs something else in the meantime. Let me explain:
It has been an inconvenient fact for John that hoaxes don't just create themselves. And while Shirley and Feldy have an obligation to establish not only that Maybrick had access to the watch back in 1888, but that he made the scratches inside it, John has a similar obligation (whether he likes it or not - claims made in a professional or unprofessional manner have a habit of being taken seriously by the real human beings directly and adversely affected by them) to establish not only that the watch could have been used for a hoax in 1993, while in Albert's possession, but that this is in fact what happened - not just what John feels must have happened.
I have asked Albert, on more than one occasion, if there is any possibility that his watch was taken from the drawer in which he kept it, and tampered with, between its purchase and his discovery of the scratches, and he categorically denies it. He says that no one would have known it was there apart from his immediate family, and that doesn't include his late brother Robbie, who only found out that Albert had bought a gold watch when he phoned Robbie to tell him all about finding the Maybrick marks inside it.
So unless Albert is John's hoaxer, or assisted the hoaxer by bringing the marks to light and has been deliberately covering their tracks ever since, John's modern hoaxer either had supernatural powers (nothing real) or simply never existed at all (nothing new, if you will).
And John should know he can always rely on me to remind him of his obligations in this regard, one of which is to demonstrate that the watch was taken from Albert's drawer and tampered with, by a real flesh-and-blood hoaxer. No wonder he indulges in battology to try to take our eyes off the ball.
John knows he won't be meeting his own obligations anytime soon, so I suggest he stops bleating about obligations he imagines others to have.
Albert bought the watch; found some words and initials scratched inside, which, as far as he is concerned, were there when he bought it; paid for one opinion and then a second one, to see if the marks could date back to the right time, or if there was anything that indicated they couldn't have done; and he was satisfied.
People can accuse Albert of being too easily satisfied, but that's about it. He doesn't ask others to be satisfied with the reports he commissioned. We asked him if they could be made available to everyone, and he was interviewed by a national newspaper which maximised publicity for their arrival on this website.
If Albert decided to try and raise funds for more testing, that would be terrific news. But I just don't see the moral obligation for him to do so if, as we have to presume, he has nothing to hide, and all he did was buy the watch, find the scratches and bring them to people's attention - as anyone else would have done in the circumstances.
If John has ever presumed any more than that, either directly, or with every repetition of his claim that the watch is a modern hoax, created on the back of the early diary publicity, he has already presumed too much.
Love,
Caz
X
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:31 pm: | |
"The more important point is the one I keep making - Why speculate when we can read about the actual observations on which Turgoose's conclusions are based? "
Because reasonable people can differ as to what is in fact meant by Turgoose. IMHO, you cannot conclude from the statement that the watch was recently scratched. Can't rule it out, either.
More tests are needed.
""skilful""
That's just sad. Have you never mistyped in this forum?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 594
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:40 pm: | |
SirRobertAnderson
IMHO, you cannot conclude from the statement that the watch was recently scratched. Can't rule it out, either.
Well we can agree about that, at least. Turgoose's report offers no conclusive evidence either way.
I have no idea what your remark "That's just sad" means. I was asking a genuine question, because Turgoose's implication that the faker must have had knowledge about electron microscopy seems nonsensical to me.
Chris Phillips
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:40 pm: | |
Caz - two questions for you:
What are the guesstimates of what thorough testing of the watch would cost? How much did Turgoose charge for his opinion?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 969
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 3:01 pm: | |
For the official record (and the seven thousand six hundred and ninety first time),
I will not now nor will I ever create any unevidenced, fanciful or imaginary scenarios to describe how either of these hoaxes was created. That has long been the job of the diary pimps, and they have done it delightfully, often with hilarious results. (It is, after all, John Over's initials that are "engraved on the back of the Maybrick watch," remember?)
I will not accuse anyone specifically of creating either of these two hoaxes without the necessary material evidence to support a claim. It has long been my often repeated position that the necessary evidence does not yet exist to accuse Mike or Anne or Albert or Robbie or anyone else specifically of creating these hoaxes.
If Caroline does not believe that the owners of these two artefacts do NOT have a moral obligation to do the responsible thing in the name of the truth and in the name of a final historical judgment and provide qualified scientists with full and unlimited access both to the watch and to the diary, then she and I simply have a different sense of right and wrong.
And until they both do that, until they both step up and deliver the goods to the professionals for proper and thorough testing using the latest technologies, there will be nothing new here. No new material, no new real evidence, and nothing but simple speculation and vague arguments relying on personal stories that begin with phrases like "I have asked Albert..."
Incidentally, just to demonstrate my claim, there has BEEN no new material, not a single new idea, no new evidence, and nothing but subjective interpretations, casual speculation, and personal narrative on this thread for a VERY long time.
And still NO ONE has come forward to create an even remotely believable scenario wherein the real James wrote the diary, scratched the watch, and killed these women -- a scenario that accounts for all the evidence we do have including the handwriting, all the ahistoricisms, the mistakes about the murders, the appearance of the same line excerpted in the same way as in the Sphere Guide, the complete lack of any verifiable provenance whatsoever for both items, the strange timing of their appearances one after the other on the scene, etc... No one has offered us anything like that.
In fact, it makes me wonder.
Is there anyone at all out there reading these words who does currently believe that the real James wrote this book, scratched this watch and killed these women?
Anyone?
I'll give you all some time.
Meanwhile, the labs remain empty.
And there's still nothing new.
--John
PS: Don't forget, amidst all this talk of getting the watch tested, that we will indeed probably all be long dead before any professional has full and unlimited access to the diary in any laboratory setting.
PPS: Yes, the salutation at the top of this post was indeed hyperbole (just a reassuring clarification for the rhetorically impaired). |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 3:07 pm: | |
Chris, his report is far from conclusive but there is plenty to debate ONCE you read the ENTIRE conclusion. It is hard for me to imagine that someone reading this would not feel that Turgoose thought that if the scratches were recent, they'd be the product of very sophisticated work.
Perhaps even "skilful".
"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."
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 3:30 pm: | |
Chris, his report is far from conclusive but there is plenty to debate ONCE you read the ENTIRE conclusion.
But (for the fifth time) what do you see in Turgoose's DESCRIPTION OF HIS OBSERVATIONS that could justify your favoured inference from his conclusion?
Chris Phillips
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:31 pm: | |
"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."
Obviously, he has qualified it six ways from Sunday but that's HIS opinion.
"likely to date back more than tens of years"
>>>>>Likely.<<<<<<
>>>>>More than tens of years.<<<<<
It's enough to make me suspend my disbelief, and entertain the notion that this may be evidence of an old hoax to defame Maybrick.
And you know what? I've seen far sillier assertions on many Casebook threads. I've read endless threads based on far less.
If you read up on the case against Florence Maybrick, at the very least it can be asserted that she did some strange things that rightfully cast suspicion upon her. It is clear that there were at least two people that didn't wish the best for Sir Jim. Could someone have hoaxed the watch back then?
My personal opinion : yes.
At the very least, the Watch presents an interesting subplot to the main story. Is it a Ripper story? I doubt it. Worth discussing on threads related to the Watch and the Watch Reports.
Yup.
}
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 732
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:37 pm: | |
John
Sorry not to make it four out of four, but I have been working today and have only just had time to look at the boards. And now, I don't really need to respond, as you just kept right on arguing with me even though I wasn't here, and made my point for me far more eloquently than I ever could have.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 970
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:47 pm: | |
Alan,
Right.
And you say you don't play rhetorical games.
Why, you're a budding master.
Thanks for coming, Alan. Please don't be a stranger.
Still nothing new in any post, and still no one who believes Maybrick wrote the diary, scratched the watch, and committed the murders,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:01 pm: | |
SirRobertAnderson
Even if you're unwilling to read anything but the conclusion of Turgoose's report, surely you can see that this magic phrase "likely to date back more than tens of years" has an enormous underlying assumption, because Turgoose has just said that the age "would depend on the cleaning or polishing regime employed".
The estimate depends entirely on an assumption about how often and how hard the surface had been polished. If the polishing regime was "normal", the scratches are "likely" to be old. If not - if the surface was polished in an effort to age it artificially - the scratches could be recent.
This is exactly what Turgoose tells us in the very next paragraph, and he says nothing there about this being an "unlikely" scenario.
But the fact that you've been asked half a dozen times which of Turgoose's observations would make a recent hoax unlikely, and you've simply ignored the question every time, perhaps indicates that you're determined to find an implication that the scratches are old, regardless of the evidence.
Chris Phillips
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:51 pm: | |
"Even if you're unwilling to read anything but the conclusion of Turgoose's report, "
Oh, please. Don't assert that. You're the one that posted a snippet of the conclusion that favored your slant.
I've read the entirety of both reports, and I believe it is reasonable to assert that the conclusions are that the scratches are either old, or a skillful forgery.
In other words, more study needs to be done but there is no "knockout" blow for the Watch. There is plenty to discredit the Diary, but not the Watch.
For now.
I fail to see why this is such a controversial assertion. Believe what you wish. I've answered your questions; I just haven't given the answers you want to hear.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 599
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:15 pm: | |
SirRobertAnderson
Your latest version, thankfully, is not controversial at all.
Yes, it was Turgoose's opinion that a faker would have had "considerable skill". I agreed that 4 or 5 messages ago. (I don't see how that opinion can be justified from his observations, but that's a separate question, which you obviously don't want to discuss.)
And no, Turgoose obviously doesn't present any evidence that the watch is a fake. That's not surprising, as nobody has suggested how scratches in gold could be dated anyway.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 05, 2005) |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:41 pm: | |
"(I don't see how that opinion can be justified from his observations, but that's a separate question, which you obviously don't want to discuss.)"
I'd discuss it, but I have a problem opining on the opinion of an expert. (Or reputed expert.) Obviously he felt that his observations led to his conclusions. Equally obvious is that the guys consulted on this had limited access and limited time to test.
I don't agree with your statement about no one suggesting how scratches in gold can be dated.
What about Wild's comments?
"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."
And more importantly:
"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."
Again, his statements are heavily boilerplated with the usual not enough time, etc etc. Points on which I think we all agree. Where we diverge is my saying that these two reports make me believe that it is POSSIBLE that we are contending with an old forgery.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:38 am: | |
SirRobertAnderson
As you don't want to "opine on the opinions of an expert", I'm happy to bring this discussion of Turgoose's report to a close.
On the two Wild extracts you post:
(1) See my discussion of the first extract earlier in this thread. If you look at the details, this argument makes no logical sense (please do explain the logic to me if you can see any!). In any case it is based on apparently false information about when the watch had last been cleaned.
And remember that in the first draft of his report, he reached a different conclusion from these measurements: "little can be said about the age of the scratches from this".
(2) This relates to the "age" of a brass particle, not the age of the scratch. Again, see previous discussions.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 5:10 am: | |
Hi Sir Robert,
You asked me:
What are the guesstimates of what thorough testing of the watch would cost?
I'm afraid I have no more idea than you have. A question for the experts I would imagine. Chris Phillips should be able to help.
How much did Turgoose charge for his opinion?
From page 43 of Ripper Diary, regarding Dr. Turgoose's commission:
[Solicitor] Richard Nicholas told Martin Howells that he...would not have agreed to represent the Johnsons if he had had any suspicion they had 'manufactured a hoax'. Unless very sure of his work, he pointed out, it would be a brave act for a forger to pay out £400, as Albert Johnson had, for tests that would in all probability expose the scratches as a recent hoax.
The watch had cost Albert £225 initially, and I understand he paid around £1,200 for the opinions of Drs. Turgoose and Wild, making a total outlay of over £1,400. He later turned down a serious written offer to take the thing off his hands for several tens of thousands of dollars (or, more accurately, between $30,000 and $40,000 ).
And, as I have explained to John (who doesn't read very well if he still fails to appreciate it), his repeated bandwagon hoax claim makes Albert a co-hoaxer at the very least (made ten times worse by his open admission that he hasn't a shred of evidence against the man).
I don't know how skilled or experienced (or just plain lucky?) a hoaxer would have to be, to believe he could fool any professional chosen by someone else, into thinking scratches he had made just weeks before could date back more than several decades. But I have a hard time accepting that someone involved in John's bandwagon hoax risked handing it over twice, was lucky enough to get away with it twice, and still ended up out of pocket through personal choice, when he could have made twenty times the money he has paid out.
But there's nowt so queer as folk, as they say - on and off the boards. It must take one to know one.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:38 am: | |
Hi again Sir Robert,
Jemima writes: I think the cat I saw was black.
Tommy, who hasn't seen the cat and doesn't know what colour it was, says: Jemima could have seen a white cat then, Miss.
Teacher: Well, I suppose it's possible Tommy. But Jemima didn't think the cat was white did she?
Tommy: But Miss, Jemima never wrote that, did she Miss? She only wrote that she thought it was black. She could have thought it was white too. If she didn't think it was white, she should have written:
'I think the cat I saw was black. I don't think the cat I saw was white.'
Bad Jemima, naughty Jemima, in your bed!
Billy: Tommy's right, Miss. He's good with cats, he is. I bet you anything you like that Jemima really saw a white cat. In fact, everyone in 2B knows it was a white cat anyway, so there. The cat's owner should do the decent thing and bring Sooty into school so Tommy and I can say we told you so.
'Miss', having narrowly managed to stop herself boxing the boys' ears, is currently on extended stress leave.
Now Drs. Turgoose and Wild evidently never encountered a Tommy or a Billy during their formative years, otherwise they might have had the good sense and foresight to have added, after expressing their opinion that it was likely the watch scratches were at least several decades old, that they both thought it was unlikely they were less than several decades old - before going off to find a gas oven to put their heads in.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 971
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:44 am: | |
Nice try, Caroline.
But you still are not going to get me to accuse anyone.
Diary World is indeed a very odd place -- where you are chastised for NOT accusing someone without the proper evidence.
And where people return each day and say much the same thing week after week, month after month, year after year, and are doomed to do so forever until and unless the owners of the watch AND the diary finally do the right thing and arrange for fully qualified professionals to have full and unlimited access to the materials for thorough testing using the latest technologies.
As always, we've got lots of speculation around here.
As always, we've got lots of interpretations around here.
But the labs are still empty and there's still nothing new and nothing real.
Just another day in the second happiest place on earth,
--John
PS: This is was written in response to the post about Albert. It was posted at the same time as the fairytale above (though it's nice to see you once again participating fully in the flowers of rhetoric). Turgoose said his results must remain speculation. Wild said that because of the limited access he was given to the material a complete and thorough investigation was impossible and that much more work needed to be done. Seems like both reports make at least that much pretty clear. The logical thing then would be to...
Well, you know.
(Message edited by omlor on January 06, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:57 am: | |
As usual, Mrs Morris has missed the point, probably deliberately, despite the point having been explained in excruciating detail, over and over again.
Really, the exchange went more like this.
Jemima: The cat looked black. Assuming no one had dyed its fur, its fur was probably naturally black. It's possible its fur was really white, and somebody had dyed it black, but they would have had to be careful to pick a natural-looking colour.
SirRobert: Jemima said "the cat was probably not white".
Tommy: Actually, she didn't. [quotes what Jemima really said]
SirRobert: You're right; actually what I quoted was said by somebody else. But I'm sure Jemima must have meant the cat was probably not white.
Tommy: But actually Jemima took some photographs of the cat and left us some detailed notes on its appearance. Wouldn't it make sense for us to look at those before guessing at what Jemima may have meant?
SirRobert No - Jemima is an expert on cats and we might not understand her notes properly. I'm sure she was saying the cat probably wasn't white - what she said can't be understood in any other way.
[Repeat last two messages several times.]
Teacher Caroline, put your tongue back in your mouth at once!
|
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 173
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:44 am: | |
Chris, a tasteful post.
I am firmly persuaded Maybrick committed these murders , brought that cat along, and kept her under his hat.
Early 19th century magicians and stage show confabulists did write diaries and hide them about the place, writing as if they believed they were still in their 'stage personalities'. They were their personal notes, records of their stage performance....; they'd leave them lying about, or bury them strategically under floorboards ' - anyone who'd discover such a diary would read a stylish line e.g. (imagine the eery, suggestive Italian accent) ......"I leave this diary in a place where it will be found"...... They did this to render their performances more entertaining. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 8:04 am: | |
Ok (I know, I know, I know what I said yesterday but things are somehow clearer today!)
Ok, I am going to say something that no one else seems willing to say who presently resides on my side of the fence. I am going to say it once only - yes if the watch is a modern forgery (that is saying if it were forged within my lifetime ie the last twenty years) then the most likely person to have forged it is Albert Johnson (or whoever owned it before him!).
Now I must add something here about that being pure speculation based on no evidence at all. For moral reasons and time restrictions that I don't think Albert Johnson did necesarily forge the watch. Those following what I just said are no doubt wondering what the hell I am on about. haven't I been a vehement anti watcher for the past year!? yes, and i still don't think James Maybrick did it!
Caz,
If Albert Johnson forged the watch (IF!) then you are correct why would he have it tested at his own personal expense at risk (and knowing the risk was subsantial) of his faking being discovered. I do have to concur this is a very good point. It's an excellent point. it's not the actions of someone sane. its a good point, to which none of us know the answer, but the most likely answer must therefore reamin that he didn't. unless can be proved otherwise (using evidence!)
Which it can't because the science places the watch scratches at least in the year 1973 (if prelimenarly - the tests that is).
1973 a year in which Albert Johnson and his friends did not own the watch.
1973, here is a question who owned the watch in 1973. Heres something, not the Johnson family right?
And that is what the evidence (however minor and unfinished) tells us.
Oh course we could speculate that he might have known he could fool the scientist but that would be speculation based on no evidence. And as such we'd all agree it's toatlly wrong.
And I might wonder aloud in a negative moment of self doubt 'is this why I have been unwiling to grasp the watch reports all this time. Because I cannot reconcile a date of 1973 with the idea the diary (which is totally unconnected) was faked in my lifetime?' I might add that was all too posible.
John,
what is the first happiest place on earth?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:20 am: | |
"SirRobert: You're right; actually what I quoted was said by somebody else. "
Oh, stop it. I quoted Begg and forgot to include (The Facts, Begg, p.415) and couldn't edit the post as more than 15 minutes had past. You correctly pointed it out and I clarified it.
It's one thing to debate; it's another to nitpick.
My contention here is quite reasonable IMHO. The Watch may be an old forgery, based on the reports posted here back in the beginning of the thread.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:24 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Disney World.
Hi All,
This morning I received a trigger point injection in my right wrist for something called FCU -- an injury related to my real full-time job of choice, golf (I normally play four of five days a week, to a four handicap).
I am typing this almost entirely with my left hand, as my right one will be numb and then sore for the rest of the day and I'm not supposed to use it more than necessary for awhile.
But I will be back in a day or three. In the meantime I'll keep reading here and enjoying the drama and the repetition.
I always have a blast here, truly. No sarcasm there.
Thanks and carry on,
--John (this left hand typing is harder than I thought) |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:28 am: | |
"I am going to say something that no one else seems willing to say who presently resides on my side of the fence. I am going to say it once only - yes if the watch is a modern forgery (that is saying if it were forged within my lifetime ie the last twenty years) then the most likely person to have forged it is Albert Johnson (or whoever owned it before him!). "
Jennifer, I agree with you. If it's a modern forgery, common sense would say it's Johnson who had a hand in it. Conceivably the jeweller that sold it to him could have done it, but the simplest explanation would point to Johnson.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:36 am: | |
yes but it's a big if and its not the only solution.
from what i've heard Albert johnson, is and honest amd nice guy.
far be it for me to cast aspirtions
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:37 am: | |
"And I might wonder aloud in a negative moment of self doubt 'is this why I have been unwiling to grasp the watch reports all this time. Because I cannot reconcile a date of 1973 with the idea the diary (which is totally unconnected) was faked in my lifetime?' I might add that was all too posible. "
IMHO you have hit the nail on the head. The watch reports are parsed to death because it is hard to deal with the secondary conclusion which leaps out from them: The Diary may be an older forgery than we are willing to concede. Doesn't make Maybrick the Ripper, but opens the door to the possibility that someone wanted to defame him.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:51 am: | |
hi Robert,
the watch reports deal with the watch, they don't deal with the diary.
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:52 am: | |
John,
not spice world? zig a zig ah!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:56 am: | |
SirRobertAnderson
The watch reports are parsed to death because it is hard to deal with the secondary conclusion which leaps out from them: The Diary may be an older forgery than we are willing to concede.
I thought we had agreed that there was nothing conclusive either way in Turgoose's report. Now here we go again, with a conclusion that "leaps out", even though it's nowhere stated!
What Turgoose observed was that there were superficial scratch marks overlaying the "Maybrick" scratches, and that the "Maybrick" scratches had rounded edges.
I'll ask again - and I'm asking everyone, not just "Sir Robert" - what in these observations could show that it was unlikely that the "Maybrick" scratches had been made recently, and that the surface had then been polished and scratched in order to age it?
Can anyone explain why the faker would need to be scientifically aware or skilful in order to do this?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 06, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 11:19 am: | |
Chris
i thought the engravers scraches covered the maybrick stuff?
Not concluding anything from that!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 11:21 am: | |
and also,
the diary is the diary and the watch is the watch.
they didn't appear together, so lets look at them seperatly.
or is that too much to ask!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:12 pm: | |
"hi Robert,
the watch reports deal with the watch, they don't deal with the diary. "
Of course.
The two items are, for better or worse, linked in the whodunnit.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:47 pm: | |
Hey Robert,
yes I'd noticed. i am simply arguing we consider them seperately is all, since they emerged seperately.
and they are seperate!
Cheers
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3194
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:13 pm: | |
The three watch reports mailed to me by Caroline Morris are now available on the Casebook at:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/watchreport.html
Thanks to Caz for sharing these reports!
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:45 pm: | |
"yes I'd noticed."
Well, so did I. It would be hard to miss. I'm interested in polite discussion, not insult.
Let me throw a further complication into the brew, when debating what needs to be discussed separately... I just picked up Stan Russo's book, and under the entry for Maybrick he says:
"Unfortunately, the horrible truth that no researcher or theorist wishes to address is that, irrespective of whether the Maybrick diary is a forgery , there still remains the possibility that James Maybrick may have committed the murders attributed to Jack the Ripper"
- p.114 "The Jack the Ripper Suspects"
I confess I hadn't thought of this angle, but it does hold true.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:36 pm: | |
Robert,
you are interested in polite discussion. Thank goodness . I am not being sarcastic saying that either. May I join you?
I think there is a thread on these boards about evidence against Maybrick excluding the diary (i may have started it not sure because i did wonder i recall being told there was none - does that surprise you?) Yes it is right it is a possibility, but it is far less credible, i guess.(i hope so at any rate
I know without the diary the watch seems less credible but really what is the reason for this? only that in all our minds the watch was forged after the diary emerged. But that's looking like it might not be the case. it's looking far more complex than i had imagined!
i wasn't having ago, please don't think that.
Stephen (and of course) Caz,
thanks for those watch reports. nice to see the photos it refers to they certainly make things clearer.
Now I would wish to know what '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.'
means in terms of the specifics of what actually faking the piece would have meant in terms of this. And what that would mean in terms of its age (ie when the technology was invented) and if anything could be concluded or indeed even speculated from that. Either way.
And another thing occurs to me whilst i am at it.
As micrograph number three shows that the 9/3 seems to be over the maybrick scratches, for example, could someone explain to be a bit more about what these markings actually mean.
thanks in advance guys!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:41 pm: | |
Thanks to Stephen for making the full reports available, including photographs and graphs.
Turgoose's photos are well worth a look (though we seem to be missing Micrograph 10).
The main question that springs into my mind is this. How on earth did the surface get into such an appalling condition? Look at Micrograph 7, for example. It looks like more like a particularly popular skating rink than an internal surface of a gold watch:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/watchreport.2.html?showpage=8
It's particularly puzzling in view of Murphy's statement that he gave the surface a thorough polishing before selling the watch to Johnson. But here are all these scratches, and as Turgoose says, they "appear to have sharp edges showing little smoothing".
I wonder how they got there, and why.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:09 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
whats this tell us? we might speculate, either Murphy didn't polish the watch at all or the scratches were all made after Murphy polished the watch?? i speculate as to those being the possiblities suggested?
This is what i mean about the engravers marks might we be able to use them for anything?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:23 pm: | |
You see micrograph 8
micrograph 8 here
which shows 'smoothing of the mounds and crossing superficial scratches'
am i right that this is indicating wear?
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:28 pm: | |
I think it's puzzling how all those scratches could have got there whether Murphy polished the watch or not.
But assuming he polished the watch, as he says he did, it seems some catastrophe befell the watch after he sold it to Albert Johnson! Maybe Caroline Morris can say whether Johnson remembers a box of iron filings being accidentally tipped over the open watch, or anything like that.
Chris Phillips
P.S. By "engravers marks" I assume you mean the sets of unexplained numbers and letters. The trouble is we don't know what they represent, and in particular we don't know whether they are part of the hoax or not.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:36 pm: | |
hi Chris,
yes that is what i meant. well that would be something useful to find out. i wonder how one should go about doing so.
yes they are puzzling but am still not sure why!
So hang on if he polished the watch it would have been pretty good lu=ooking. it should have removed scracthes?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:25 pm: | |
"Robert,
you are interested in polite discussion. Thank goodness . I am not being sarcastic saying that either. May I join you?"
Hey Jenni - sorry if I shot first and asked questions later. Given the general tone of the debate, which is more like carpet bombing any ideas or notions that don't involve denouncing people connected with the Diary, I assumed you were being snide.
"I think there is a thread on these boards about evidence against Maybrick excluding the diary (i may have started it not sure because i did wonder i recall being told there was none - does that surprise you?) Yes it is right it is a possibility, but it is far less credible, i guess.(i hope so at any rate "
Agreed. But if we are going to discuss everything on it's own merits, it's one thing to consider. The thing that struck me after reading the transcripts of Florence's trial is that there was more of a case against her than I assumed. It is not a stretch to say that there are a few people that didn't like Sir Jim very much....could they have tried to defame him? (I can't bring myself to even discuss whether or not he was the Ripper...)
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
|
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.
|
|
