|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:28 pm: | 
|
"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.' "
Gotta say that this sentence really stirs the pot, as I doubt the alleged forgers had access to an electron microscope.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 740
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
I have made this point several times, whenever the argument is made that the diary has to be a modern forgery because it contains things that have only come to light since 1988, that there were plenty of people around in the 1890's who knew them as well so that the forger would not necessarily have needed to read the right books, just to ask questions of the right people.
But usually when I mention this the stukas start hovering about 30 seconds later. I shall now wait for the bullets to start flying.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Alan, one of the benefits of taking a year off from the Case is that one can come back questioning one's own old assumptions. Back in 2003 I thought discussion of the Diary an absurdity, and a waste of time. Now I find it an interesting sideshow on it's own merits, a whodunnit within a whodunnit. And with the release of the Reports on the Watch, I am willing to consider the possibility that we're dealing with forgeries older than we all thought possible.
And if either item is indeed old, it raises the further possibility that the parties trying to defame Maybrick may have thought they were "outting" the Ripper.
"I shall now wait for the bullets to start flying."
I prefer to think of it as the baying of the hounds.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 518
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:24 pm: |
|
The back of the watch is scratched "I am Jack.."
reminds me of Neill Cream's famous last words.... right out of Donald Rumbelow.
For you 'old forgery' buffs, I wonder if anyone is willing to give a go at why the diarist writes "business is flourishing."
(Message edited by rjpalmer on January 06, 2005) |
Nina Thomas
Inspector
Username: Nina
Post Number: 215
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
Concerning your post on 11/26/04
At Christmas I spoke to my so-in-law who has a PhD in Physics. I asked him what several tens of years old meant and if it could mean 100 years. This is my short translation of his long response. His response was that it was a common term used and would mean from 30 years on. He also stated that it would definitely not mean 100 years.
The term ‘at least’ could make the watch older. Yet, as Wild stated ‘It is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work’. As you know Wild only had a limited two hours to do the testing.
If you would like to contact those involved in testing the watch, I found the following links:
Dr. S Turgoose
http://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/CPC/Old%20Pages/ST%20PAGE.htm
Includes his Photograph, telephone number and Email
Dr. R K Wild
http://www.uksaf.org/news/news24.html
His Email is listed with his article "High Spatial Resolution Analysis using Vintage Instrumentation!".
Nina  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
Alan,
yes, i agree with what you say to an extent. And that is for example in relation to the diary, o'costly, that could be found in any period if looking in the right place (nb clearly any period after it was written) by anybody. as with the misinformation about mary kelly's breasts.
But what about tin match box empty, because this was info held by a select few in authority. was it not?
Hey Robert,
no worries,
RJ,
hey there. cream said that as early as when he died. not just in Don's book!!
Hi Nina,
thanks for the links
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Hi Nina,
Many thanks for posting the info. I had already planned to write to Turgoose and Wild, but have yet to draft the letters.
My brother is also a Doctor of Physics. But I see this as a simple case of English Language and History. 'At least several tens of years old' means just that; the only ceiling is not one of the scientists' making, but the date of Mary Kelly's murder. Your son-in-law got it right when he said it would mean 'from 30 years on'. But then he contradicted himself by stating that 'it would definitely not mean 100 years'. Where is the limit set by either Turgoose or Wild in their reports?
In any case, my understanding is that Dr. Wild actually told Robert Smith that he thought the scratches could date back as far as 1888.
Hi Chris P,
I know you think that the observations included in the reports don't justify the final conclusion reached in both of them. That is your opinion and you entitled to express it and defend it with your own observations. But that doesn't necessarily render the conclusion invalid.
Obviously, despite your own misgivings about the observations included in the reports (which you presumably acknowledge as being accurate, without the benefit of examining the watch for yourself, otherwise you would not be able to use them to undermine the conclusion), Turgoose and Wild felt confident enough to reach the conclusions we see before us. They were certainly not obliged to go as far as they did, and you don't know what other thoughts and observations may have been behind those conclusions, that don't appear in the final reports.
The Rendell Report on the diary, by contrast contains practically nothing in the way of scientific observation to justify the final conclusions of the experts involved, and yet I don't hear you or anyone else express a single concern that they may not have got it right.
Hi Sir Robert,
I'm not sure a hoaxer would need to know what equipment existed that could catch him out. All that matters is that the equipment used in this case didn't detect a hoaxer's hand. Whether it should have done, and the hoaxer was just fortunate, or would have done if this was indeed a very recent hoax, is another matter.
And finally, John misses the point yet again. I don't have to 'try' anything. I don't have to get him to accuse anyone.
He does it himself - every time he posts that the watch is a modern hoax. The only way he can be right is if Albert is in on the hoax. I've explained why, so he can choose to ignore my explanation, but he can't pretend it doesn't apply, and he can hardly claim not to understand it. It was written in plain 21st century English.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
I'm not sure a hoaxer would need to know what equipment existed that could catch him out. All that matters is that the equipment used in this case didn't detect a hoaxer's hand. Whether it should have done, and the hoaxer was just fortunate, or would have done if this was indeed a very recent hoax, is another matter.
For once I'm going to agree here.
This is exactly my problem with Turgoose's conclusion that the faker must have been scientifically knowledgeable. Turgoose seems to argue that as he used an electron microscope but wasn't able to detect evidence that the scratches were recent, a recent faker must have known about electron microscopy.
If that's the argument, it's not a logical one. After all, if in the future the scratches were looked at again with a newly invented scientific instrument, and the results were again inconclusive, we should hardly be justified in concluding that the faker was gifted with the power of precognition!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 07, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 974
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
As briefly as possible (out of physical necessity).
1. I am not accusing anyone. If readers can't understand that "plain" and simple sentence, then there is nothing else I can do. There is no way to write it clearer or more directly.
2. The list of all but impossible textual coincidences that would had to have happened simultaneously for the diary to be anything other than modern hoax is too long for me type with one hand. Fortunately, I don't have to as they appear, thoroughly discussed -- from the precise proper naming of a modern pub all the way to language identical to that in books and documents either unavailable to the public or not even written until modern times and many other amazing coincidences in between -- all on the appropriate threads concerning the diary's numerous textual anomalies. Add all this to the diary's complete and total lack of a verifiable provenance, the behavior of those involved in bringing it forward, and there being no evidence anywhere of any sort that suggests this book even existed in the same century as the real James Maybrick and only one valid inductive conclusion remains.... Personally, I am quite happy to be on the record saying that the diary is a modern hoax. I am not a sucker. Of course, when scientists are given full and unlimited access to this material for proper and thorough testing and this whole silly argument is put to an end, we'll know for sure who was right.
Wait. What am I saying? It must be the painkillers. That sure ain't gonna' happen anytime soon (if ever). So carry on, folks. There won't be anything whatsoever, of any sort, new around here to change your minds.
But it's all a lark to read.
Sorry if this comes up cross-posted with other people's thoughts. Man, it takes a long time to type this way. 
Done for the day,
--John
PS: Turgoose said his findings remained "speculation" and Wild said a full and complete investigation was impossible given the limited access he had to the item and much more work needed to be done. Therefore, the logical thing to do would be....
(Message edited by omlor on January 07, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Caz,
we weren't talking about rendall because this is a watch thread.
Chris,
three of us agree. what's going on!
John,
but this thread is concerned with the watch not the diary.
Jenni
ps speculation?
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
"His response was that it was a common term used and would mean from 30 years on. He also stated that it would definitely not mean 100 years. "
Hi Nina!
It's nice to hear that the scientific interpretation of the term also fits with the common sense interpretation.
Is this a fair 'plain English" rephrasing of it?
"The watch scratches possibly date from as late as the 1950s, and are unlikely to date from the time of the Ripper. It is also unlikely to have been recently scratched."
Folks OK with this "translation"?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1608
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Robert,
if only life round here was that simple.
stupid watch !
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
I see nothing odd in taking a mettalic object,and knowing it's a forgery,to be tested by an expert in mettalergy.You would hardly take it to a clergyman for instance.If it has to stand the test,take it to the best.
By the same token,the best test if one is forging banknotes,is to try and pass one at a bank. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
SirRobertAnderson
"The watch scratches possibly date from as late as the 1950s, and are unlikely to date from the time of the Ripper. It is also unlikely to have been recently scratched."
Folks OK with this "translation"?
I'm really at a loss to respond to this. How often does it have to be pointed out that this is obviously dependent - as Turgoose says - on an assumption about how the surface has been treated? That fact isn't going to go away no matter how often you ignore it.
In "plain English", you clearly have to add, "assuming the surface has not been artificially aged".
How many people, looking at the number of scratches on the surface, which had been thoroughly polished shortly before it was sold to Johnson, think it's safe to assume it hadn't been artificially aged?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
"I'm really at a loss to respond to this. How often does it have to be pointed out that this is obviously dependent - as Turgoose says - on an assumption about how the surface has been treated? That fact isn't going to go away no matter how often you ignore it."
I'm not ignoring it; it's quite plainly stated in the report. I'm just trying to translate legalese/academic jargon to plain English.
One thing that occurs to me is that it would be nice to have electron microscope images of a variety of watches of differing ages and conditions. You ever look at human skin under extreme magnification? Even smooth skin looks like the surface of the moon. Perhaps that is the case here.
And yes, I'm saying perhaps. I don't know.
"In "plain English", you clearly have to add, "assuming the surface has not been artificially aged".
I agree with you. Good point.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
SirRobertAnderson
One thing that occurs to me is that it would be nice to have electron microscope images of a variety of watches of differing ages and conditions. You ever look at human skin under extreme magnification? Even smooth skin looks like the surface of the moon. Perhaps that is the case here.
Yes, I think that's a very good suggestion.
Electron microscopy would probably be rather expensive and difficult to arrange, but light microscopy would show enough for a useful comparison. I don't think it would even need to be particularly high magnification, because the scratches are visible (I think) without any magnification at all:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4920&post=91217#POST91217
Equally importantly, it could be done without having to examine the Maybrick watch itself. One would just need the loan of a mid-19th-century gold watch, and a microscope hooked up to a digital camera.
I think something this simple could give a very strong indication whether the surface of the watch had been artificially aged.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
yes it is a good suggestion.
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
Hi All,
I think I'm going slowly mad here.
Sir Robert now re-interprets the report's conclusion, that the scratches were likely to be 'at least several tens of years old' thus:
"The watch scratches possibly date from as late as the 1950s, and are unlikely to date from the time of the Ripper. It is also unlikely to have been recently scratched."
Folks OK with this "translation"?
No, no, a thousand times no!
At least means a minimum of, ie possibly more than.
Therefore, 'at least several tens of years old' could be substituted by:
'possibly more than several tens of years old'.
100 is just a number - 10 tens in fact.
So if we can all agree that 10 can be defined as being 'more than several', just as easily as 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 could,we need only substitute the number '10' for the words 'more than several', and hey presto! we have the magic 100.
Watch:-
'possibly more than several tens of years old'.
'possibly 10 tens of years old'.
And since the number 11 could equally well be defined as being 'more than several', but 11 tens would take the scratches back further than history allows, we can also say that, according to the report's conclusion, and bearing in mind the caveats, the scratches were:
'possibly 10.5 tens of years old' at the time.
Now I wonder if everyone else gets the same as do when they multiply 10.5 by ten and then take the answer away from 1993?
If not, I may as well throw everything I ever learned in my Maths and English lessons into the out-tray.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
Interesting thoughts on the watch surface looking like a well-frequented skating rink. I agree with you that it's most odd.
I also have to bear in mind, however, that when I was shown the surface in 2001, I could barely see anything at all in the way of scratch marks, even with Albert's wife Val holding a normal magnifying glass. (Thinking back, I may have seen the H 9/3 and perhaps the 1275 too, but wouldn't have taken much notice because they have no obvious relevance to the Maybrick marks.)
Anyway, I can certainly see the effect that high levels of magnification can have on people's overall impression of what the scratches are really like, and how the devil anyone could have missed that little lot until Albert and his workmates finally noticed them.
You wrote:
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.
We need an expert to tell us what effect a 'thorough' polishing, as you describe it, would have on scratches in gold, whether there were just a few that Murphy tried to remove in early 1992, or the skating rink Turgoose saw in August 1993.
Melvin Harris used to say that Murphy's polishing would have taken the form of 'a gentle rouge job'. And evidently Murphy failed to remove some, if not all of the visible scratches before selling the watch to Albert, otherwise he'd have known for certain that the Maybrick ones must have been made since.
So I am confused about how much effect polishing would have, even the most vigorous, on a previously scratched surface.
It begs the question: how - and why - would Albert, or someone working with Albert*, have so completely removed the scratches left behind after Murphy's 'thorough' or 'gentle rouge' job, before starting work on the Maybrick marks, that not one showed up for Turgoose to examine and describe, even under such high levels of magnification? As far as he was concerned, 'I am Jack' and Maybrick's signature were the earliest marks discernible.
All very puzzling, don't you agree?
Love,
Caz
X
*Just in case John still doesn't get it, that his claim directly implicates Albert, and only Albert, in his 'modern bandwagon hoax'. Repeating a thousand times that he isn't accusing anyone is akin to Mike Barrett repeating a thousand times that he doesn't tell lies; it doesn't wash with anyone.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
hey Caz,
join the club!(of people going mad that is )
Anyway, slowly from the top.
Yes, you are correct on the meaning of at least several tens of years old. From this we have two dates, the date we know the watch was made (1850's?) and the date at least several tens of years begins from, that is 1993 - 1 10= 1983 (only one ten note here) 1993 - 2 10s(ie the lowest number several can be)= -20 yrs = 1973.
Umm....maybe I over complicated that a little there!
Here it is simplified
several = at least 2 tens
2 tens = 10 + 10 = 20
the report was written in 1993
At least several tens of years = 1993 - 20 = 1973
(Glad to establish this as the logical meaning of the statement at least several tens of years. I was always taught to show my workings out at school!!)
Therefore we conclude at least several tens of years includes the years from 1850s when the watch was made up to the year 1973.
In this regard I agree with you, I am sure you are breathing a sigh of relief not to throw out those maths and english papers! I must add though that this interpretation is relying on no interference having taken place (according to the report).
So we need to try and establish if interference did take place (anyone still following this!!?)
The surface of the watch does appear odd. Here we are all agreeing don't miss it! But as we were discussing yesterday we don't know what a normal watch looks like - we have nothing for comparison. There is no control group.
Let us try and establish what the inside of watches look like. Before we continue to talk about this.
Yes, the scratches are light, I can see how the owners of the watch could have missed it. Who looks inside the watch there anyway? I mean is it a common thing to do? Would it tell the owner anything?
Yes, we need to know what the effects of polishing would be on the surface and on any scratches and would it have been possible for Murphy to have missed to markings - how does one go about polishing the inside of a watch for eg?
I am not about to repeat allegations against Albert Johnson, whatever you might think of that Caz, because I am not convinced he is the only one who could have faked the scratches, so it would be morally unsound.
Cheers
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
It begs the question: how - and why - would Albert, or someone working with Albert*, have so completely removed the scratches left behind after Murphy's 'thorough' or 'gentle rouge' job, before starting work on the Maybrick marks, that not one showed up for Turgoose to examine and describe, even under such high levels of magnification?
Surely there's no need for any mystery about that. It's obvious from the micrographs that after the Maybrick scratches were made, the surface underwent very vigorous polishing, almost sufficient to remove the Maybrick scratches themselves in places. Any shallower scratches could easily have been obliterated by this process.
Regardless of all the other stuff, the question remains: How did so many scratches get on to an internal surface of the watch - a surface that shouldn't have been exposed to sharp objects at all?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Chris,
exactly, how id they get there just one of the many questions left unanswered.
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 981
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
This is now officially hilarious.
Try this.
If I buy an object. And I ask the owner how old it is. And he says, "it's at least tens of years old." And I take it home. And then I find out it's more than one hundred years old. Do you know what I'm probably going to say?
"Wow, it's older than I thought."
At least, that would be my reaction. But I'm sure it doesn't help here, because no one is going to be convinced by anything anyway. I knew that the minute Sir Robert typed the words "are unlikely to date from the time of the Ripper," Caroline Morris was going to have a hissy. And sure enough, right on schedule, there she was, protecting her interests.
Anyway, none of these interpretations really matter much, since Turgoose himself tells us his conclusions remain "speculation" and Wild tells us that a complete investigation was impossible due to the limited access he had with the material.
But then, buried in one of her posts, Caroline Morris finally writes the magic words.
There they are.
Right there at the beginning of a paragraph (about polishing).
"We need an expert to tell us..."
Well, duh.
We need an expert to have full and unlimited access to the material finally and to thoroughly test it in a laboratory using the latest technologies.
We need an expert to be given full and complete access to the diary as well and thoroughly test it using the latest technologies.
If we want this stupid, purely desire driven, rhetorical silliness that passes for an argument to end, if we want to learn finally, with hard data, when these two obvious hoaxes were created, we need them to be properly and thoroughly tested in a laboratory setting where the professionals have full and unlimited access to the material.
Otherwise, I am going to wake up every morning and read exactly the same thing from exactly the same people (myself included) over and over again, and discussing the hoaxes will be a purely repetitive event that will serve only to keep some very bored people busy during the empty moments in their lives.
Not that there's anything wrong with wasting time this way, as long as we all know that's what's happening.
Still laughing about the desperation in that first math post up there,
--John 
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:55 am: |
|
It seems to me we need to establish thing we don't know but need to know in order to continue this conversation.
This here won't be the extensive definitive version of such a list but it's a start.
(imagine each point starts i'd like to stop hugging my armchair and find out)
1)what other gold watches of a similar age look like for scratches in the same place.
2)the effects of polishing on gold watches.
3)how one goes about polishing a watch
4)what do those non Maybrick markings mean
this will do for now
anyone want to disagree?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
John,
maths remember it?
Turgoose writes the scratches are "at least several tens of years old".
let me break that down for you further
At (indicating position in space or time, movement towards an object) least (superlative of little/ smallest/ smallest one/in the smallest degree)= the smallest possible amount
several = more than one usually at least 2
ten(s) ten = the number after nine.
tens = more than one ten
several tens = 2 tens
2 tens = 10 + 10 = 20
of = belonging to/consiting of/connected with
years = 365 days s indicating more than one year.
old = of a specified age
the report was written in 1993 = therefore we are working out several tens of years from this point.
At least several tens of years old = 1993 - 20 = 1973
see how that works John, so what is your point?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 985
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Jenni,
You crack me up.
Thanks for the laugh. I knew my little example would be of no use.
My point?
Fine, I'll cut and paste:
Turgoose himself tells us his conclusions remain "speculation" and Wild tells us that a complete investigation was impossible due to the limited access he had with the material.
[Therefore...]
We need an expert to have full and unlimited access to the watch finally and to thoroughly test it in a laboratory using the latest technologies.
We need an expert to be given full and complete access to the diary as well and thoroughly test it using the latest technologies.
If we want this stupid, purely desire driven, rhetorical silliness that passes for an argument to end, if we want to learn finally, with hard data, when these two obvious hoaxes were created, we need them to be properly and thoroughly tested in a laboratory setting where the professionals have full and unlimited access to the material.
Otherwise, I am going to wake up every morning and read exactly the same thing from exactly the same people (myself included) over and over again, and discussing the hoaxes will be a purely repetitive event that will serve only to keep some very bored people busy during the empty moments in their lives.
That, in case you missed it, was my point.
Roll on,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 986
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Hey everyone.
I have a new question for the reading game we are all playing.
Since we're all parsing this supposedly simple little phrase, "more than tens of years," I thought now was the time to ask it.
Here you go:
What Turgoose actually wrote was,
"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."
Now then, putting aside all the language of uncertainty for a moment, let's just take a look at the LAST NINE WORDS.
"MORE THAN TENS OF YEARS AND POSSIBLY MUCH LONGER"
If, as we are being told here by Caroline, mathematically "more than tens of years" could be mean a hundred, then WHY would Turgoose himself have to add the phrase "POSSIBLY MUCH LONGER?"
"Possibly much longer" than what?
Is a hundred years "much longer" than "more than tens of years?"
Not according to Caroline.
And that takes us back to about the time when the watch was made.
So what exactly would be "POSSIBLY MUCH LONGER" than "TENS OF YEARS" in this case anyway?
It is quite clear, isn't it, that Turgoose himself did NOT think the phrase "more than tens of years" itself MEANT a hundred years. THAT is why he added the phrase "POSSIBLY MUCH LONGER."
Otherwise, the addition of that phrase makes no sense whatsoever.
If he thought "more than tens of years" meant "perhaps all the way back to the 1800s" then HE WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON TO WRITE THE WORDS "and possibly much longer.
Now, of course, we all know (rhetorical phrase), that his report is not decisive and it couches its conclusions in caveats and the language of speculation and uncertainty and that until some scientist somewhere is given full and complete access to the watch for the sort of thorough and proper testing that Wild claims would be necessary to draw any hard conclusions, we are not going to agree on anything.
But let's be clear about what the man wrote.
If he thought the phrase "more than tens of years" meant "perhaps all the way back to Maybrick's day," there would be no reason whatsoever for him to have written the phrase "possibly much longer."
There would have been no possible "much longer."
What, I ask you all IS "much longer" than "more than tens of years?
Anyone want to answer this last question?
Thanks,
--John
PS: Yes, in case you missed it, Turgoose himself actually seems to be saying that a hundred years is "possibly much longer" than "more than tens of years." So "more than tens of years" must not have meant a hundred years for him -- otherwise he wouldn't have been able to write that last phrase -- "possibly much longer."
PPS: Gee, reading is fun.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
Hi John,
So what is your definition of 'more than tens'? What is the maximum implied by 'more than tens'? You seem to be assuming that a scientist would set himself a maximum using the history books, and the date of Mary Kelly's murder, but I am not so sure this is the case. Aren't they supposed to ignore such things and simply concentrate on the forensic evidence in reaching a conclusion? Isn't the known history then used to allow for the conclusion to be correct, or to prove it incorrect?
More than tens of years, and possibly much longer than tens, would certainly seem to imply more than twenty at the very least, with more than a hundred not out of the question either, as far as Turgoose was concerned.
Dr. Wild actually confirmed to Robert Smith in conversation that he thought the scratches could have been made in 1888, so no mystery there with what he thought he meant by 'at least several tens of years'.
Why do you have to bring everything down to your own murky level by calling it 'protecting my interests', when it's Turgoose and Wild who wrote what they wrote and said what they said.
If you are seriously arguing that 'more than tens and possibly much longer' couldn't possibly mean 105 years, and are still insisting more tests, if done thoroughly and extensively enough, would reveal the scratches to have been 'no more than a few weeks' old when first examined, I have to wonder what interests you are desperately trying to protect here.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
No one is saying Albert is the only person who could have faked the scratches if it's a modern hoax. What I was pointing out to John is that the only person directly implicated by him, every time he claims it is a modern hoax, is Albert. In other words, someone else could have faked them, and others could have been involved, but not necessarily. Only Albert has to have been involved, according to John's bandwagon hoax claim.
A subtle difference I know, but the difference is there.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
If you are seriously arguing that 'more than tens and possibly much longer' couldn't possibly mean 105 years, and are still insisting more tests, if done thoroughly and extensively enough, would reveal the scratches to have been 'no more than a few weeks' old when first examined, I have to wonder what interests you are desperately trying to protect here.
As has been made clear about a dozen times in the last few days, Turgoose's estimate "the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer" - which is indeed nonsensically worded - has been qualified in the previous sentence: the true age "would depend on the cleaning or polishing regime employed".
As Mrs Morris is aware, Turgoose then goes on to say explicitly:
"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."
So there is nothing in Turgoose's conclusion that would be inconsistent with the scratches having been made "a few weeks" before. As we've discussed, he doesn't even say he considers this unlikely.
Mrs Morris's rhetoric is misleading.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
"his here won't be the extensive definitive version of such a list but it's a start.
(imagine each point starts i'd like to stop hugging my armchair and find out)
1)what other gold watches of a similar age look like for scratches in the same place.
2)the effects of polishing on gold watches.
3)how one goes about polishing a watch
4)what do those non Maybrick markings mean"
And mercifully, none of these require access to the Watch nor further tests on said Watch.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 989
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Caroline,
I have no definition of "more than tens of years."
I am merely pointing out that Turgoose's own grammar indicates clearly that HE saw a difference between "more than tens of years" and something beyond that, and therefore he had to add "and possibly much longer." It's the only way the sentence makes any sense. If he himself thought "more than tens of years" meant "possibly a hundred" or "possibly all the way back to when the watch was made," then he simply would have had no reason to write "possibly much longer." But he did write those words.
There is no other way to read the grammar of that final clause -- it is only necessary, it only makes sense, if "possibly much longer" is different than "more than tens of years." So, for Turgoose at least, there clearly was a difference.
That means for him "more than tens of years" DID NOT by itself mean perhaps all the way back to when the watch was made. Because that's what the added "and possibly much longer" means.
Is this not obvious? It's the only way the grammar of the sentence works. If he thought "more than tens of years" could mean "all the way back to when the watch was made," then there would be no point to his writing "and possibly much longer."
But he wrote it.
Clearly, for him, there was a difference.
That's the only way the grammar makes sense.
As for your "protecting your interests," Turgoose and Wild wrote what they wrote indeed. Your interpretation of what they wrote, however, is the issue.
Turgoose tells us his conclusions must remain "speculation" and Wild tells us a complete scientific investigation was not possible due to the limited access he was given to the material and much more work needed to be done.
The only logical thing to do, therefore, is...
Nah, never mind.
No matter how simple and obvious a conclusion is, it doesn't make a difference around here, because this is about other things.
Still nothing new and still nothing real.
And I am still not accusing anyone of anything (despite at least one person's inability to read a simple declarative sentence).
Round and round we go, getting nowhere, as always,
--John (who can at least read two clauses when one immediately follows the other in a sentence)
(Message edited by omlor on January 08, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Geez,
tens (the pural of ten the number that comes between nine and eleven) of and ajorning word, years the plural of year meaning 365 days its quite simplt really guys!!
If you want to know what turgoose meant ask him
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Robert,
of course i am not saying retesting the watch is not a good idea, but we need to know more about these reports first, don't you think?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 993
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Except that's not the end of the sentence.
--John
PS: See my e-mail to you for an additional reminder. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
John,
here's what Wild(sorry earlier i said Turgoose but apparently it was Wild) concluded
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.
Now i already went over the key phrase 'at least several tens of years old'
what about the rest of it?
eg 'from the limited amount of evidence'
eg 'it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work'
Perhaps what exactly this work is would also be useful to know.
Anyone still in doubt what several tens of years old means? please feel free to email me for a more in depth guide!!
Now we note Turgoose and Wilds conclusion vary slightly
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
John,
see my post for a reminder I didn't fall off the stupid tree when i was born!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 995
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Sorry. My post(s) above had to do with reading the phrase "more than tens of years, and possibly much longer" within Turgoose's observations.
That phrase clearly indicates that, for the writer, there is a difference between "more than tens of years" and "much longer."
That is my only point here.
As for Wild's conclusions, he makes it very clear that he was not given the access to the watch that would have made a complete investigation possible and more work needs to be done.
In fact, he says,
"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 believe it or not, that's STILL true today, over a full decade later.
Amazing,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 08, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
John,
at cross purposes there a second.
no worries
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:36 pm: |
|
"I think I'm going slowly mad here.
Sir Robert now re-interprets the report's conclusion, that the scratches were likely to be 'at least several tens of years old' thus: "
I see your point, Caz, but lean towards putting more emphasis on the "several tens of years" part than the "at least". Personally - and I realize folks will have different angles on this - if someone wanted to say "most likely this dates from the 1880s" they wouldn't choose to say what Turgoose has written.
It would be illuminating to talk to the chap; I think we can all agree on that!
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
I agree that neither Dr. Turgoose nor Dr. Wild wanted to say "most likely this dates from the 1880s". I wasn't arguing that this is what Turgoose meant by 'more than tens of years old, and possibly much longer, or what Wild meant by 'at least several tens of years old'.
But I seriously doubt that Wild immediately contradicted his own report's conclusion, in telling Robert Smith that he thought the scratches could have been made in 1888.
And I seriously doubt that even John thinks 'more than tens of years, and possibly much longer', and "I think the scratches could have been made in 1888", couldn't possibly be interpreted by any sane person as meaning that both Turgoose and Wild thought the scratches really could have been made in 1888. 
Unfortunately, none of this means the scratches were made in 1993, as a bandwagon hoax, which would necessarily have involved Albert.
Which brings us nicely back to John's subjective opinions combined with empty rhetorical gestures.
Here's the opinion:
'The watch is a modern hoax.'
And here's the empty rhetorical gesture:
Calling for Albert (who has to know it's a modern hoax for it to be one) to get more tests done.
If Albert knows it's a hoax, created while in his possession, no one in their right mind would expect him to help expose it as such.
And if Albert doesn't know any such thing, then John's opinion is wrong, and we are looking at an older artefact.
It's as simple as that.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Caroline,
come on, what you say
If Albert knows it's a hoax, created while in his possession, no one in their right mind would expect him to help expose it as such.
And if Albert doesn't know any such thing, then John's opinion is wrong, and we are looking at an older artefact.
is true in one sense but kind of misses the point. its not that simple. perhaps i missed something?
the paradox is that if albert did forge it we would expcet him to resist getting it tested. which is kinda the pioint i think you'll find of suggesting he does (unless i missed something?) yet you are using that as proof it is old. which is not the case is it?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 996
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
And...
We're back.
But with absolutely nothing new, nothing interesting, and pure and simple repetition from Caroline.
The funny part about this is how she just ignores the grammar of Turgoose's own sentence when it proves to be inconvenient and mark a difference between "tens of years" and "much longer" and how she ignores this simple sentence:
"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 so here we are, a full decade later, and this is still the case.
Hey! I have an idea.
Let's actually have what Wild would call "a thorough investigation" into both the watch and the diary.
Let's get beyond the "preliminary" results and allow the professionals full and complete access to the material, so we can get some final ones.
Or does that make too much common sense?
As for her final syllogism, it is, of course, obviously and fatally flawed, since it assumes I agree with both of her premises. I don't.
It's the hidden one that she has not established through anything more than personal testimony that bothers me.
By the way, that reminds me of another question I wanted to ask her, since we are always reassured about what a straightforward and truthful guy Albert is and how he would never mislead us about stuff...
Here's a quote from everyone's favorite fiction writer, Paul Feldman:
"In the period between Autumn 1995 and the spring of 1996, I disclosed all my research to Albert Johnson. He no longer denied he was a 'Maybrick,' but would not alter his story of how he came by the watch. I suggested to him that I must be missing something obvious, but he would only say 'maybe it will come to you.' I will not push Albert; there is no point. Something far more important than money prevents Albert from telling everything he knows and, I am sure, always will. An oath, perhaps? Had he been sworn to secrecy about the watch, I know ALbert would never break that promise.
(God, I love Paul's use of rhetorical questions!)
Anyway, I was just wondering. Does Albert still believe he is actually a "Maybrick?" Is he still not denying it? And what's with this deliberate coyness and hinting nonsense? Just what "secrets" about the watch would Albert have to keep anyway?
These questions of mine are NOT rhetorical. If anyone has spoken to Albert recently, might they happen to know the answers?
Or did Paul just make all of this up? (That wouldn't surprise me, either.)
I'll check later for answers,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
John,
I'm tired and i should be working (3, 666) and on top of that you make me go and get out my Paul feldman! can you be forgiven!!
Patricia Cornwell is my favourite fiction writer.
Anyway, lets just remind myself of how Albert johnson is 'related to James maybrick'
I mean lets not get into this but i can make myself relted to anyone using this logic,(alledegly) eg my gt granfather was the illegitmate son of Robert James Lees and err... princess (i don't know pick one!)
that is as much proof as is in the book. or did i miss something? I am prepared to be wrong!
Jenni
ps tired and confused!
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Hi Caz.
As far as I am concerned, anything that points to the watch as having been scratched prior to the 1980s opens up Pandora's Box. Certainly nothing has been proven, and of course more testing is needed, but the question needs to be asked: If the Watch scratches date from before 1980, what does this mean for the Diary?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
George Hutchinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 51
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Forgive my ignorance here, folks - I have only just come on to this posting and the whole Maybrick thing doesn't really draw me as I am in no doubt whatsoever it is all fake (sweeping, but heartfelt).
Am I stating what you all know very well when I say I have discussed this with Stewart Evans and he tells me the rusted particles were electron-microscopic and all it proves is that the scratches were made with an old pin?
Am I about to wish I hadn't posted this?
PHILIP (who made Detective Sergeant in 2 days!)
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2800
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Oh boy, Hutch...
If you only knew what you're getting yourself into, meddling with this stuff. Ouch...
Man, are you in trouble now... 
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 11:33 pm: |
|
"Am I about to wish I hadn't posted this? "
SOUND THE ALERT WE'VE GOT VISITORS
Welcome to Diary World, friend. Stay awhile.
Seriously, the Diary/Watch saga is an interesting whodunnit in and of itself. Just chew on this one for starters: all "we" need is for the Watch to have been scratched earlier than the 1980s and Pandora's Box is open......
I will see you Evans, and raise you Begg.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 999
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Welcome Philip,
Of course, if the owners of this watch and this diary would finally step up and do the right thing, would finally provide qualified professional scientists full and unlimited access to the material for thorough and complete testing using the latest technologies, "we'd" have an answer for you.
But they haven't. (Are you surprised?)
So all you are going to get around here is speculation, conflicting interpretations, and expressions of personal desire without real evidence.
Of course, no one ever comes here to write that the real James Maybrick had anything to do with these things. So all we do is repetitiously argue in circles about when the hoaxes were made.
But until the "thorough investigation" Dr. Wild called for in his report is made possible, until the owners of these artefacts finally do the moral and responsible thing, what you see here will just be people wasting their time because they are bored. That's the bottom line.
Anyway, if that sort of thing amuses you, hang around and play. If not, move on by, because there really is "nothing new and nothing real" to see here.
All the best,
--John |
George Hutchinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 53
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
I do have to laugh. I really do. I have rarely felt so much like Oliver being taken to Fagin's lair!!!
If it's all the same to you, I'd like to go back to Mr Brownlow now (AKA East End images).
I wonder if Stewart is going to mind me having mentioned this? He reads the boards I know but he's not e-mailed me to say anything! I think I hide behind him a bit too much, but then he's a good person to hide behind!
I have to agree with you John (sorry, Mr Lighter Side Of My Official Life) that this area is just a spiral. The Maybrick side doesn't interest me that much. I am just delving into the pick'n'mix and unfortunately I have picked out the foam banana (by the way - I don't like the foam bananas!).
I am seriously relieved to hear, though, that no one on here believes the Maybrick rubbish and it is just a question of who hoaxed and when. But I do have to ask myself, if that is the object, then it is really very peripheral to the Ripper mystery, is it not?
Have I just run into Bill Sikes?
PHILIP 'OLIVER' HUTCH
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
