|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 10:26 am: | 
|
Here is the Daily mail article:
(the comment at the end about Casebook is in the original article)
Daily Mail (UK)
23 November 2004
THE RIPPER REVEALED?
Could a scratched old watch be the evidence that finally identifies him...
by Kate Sullivan
The terrible scream echoed through the empty cobbled streets of Whitechapel in east London. It was the last sound uttered by a 44 year old prostitute called Mary Nichols.
Within minutes, the body of the delicately pretty woman - whose high cheekbones, brown hair and grey eyes made her appear far younger then her years - was a bloody mess.
Her attacker wielded his eight inch knife in a frenzy of violence. He made his first cut below her left ear, plunging his knife four inches through her neck.
The next cut was on the same side but even deeper; it severed all tissue and the two main blood vessels, passing right through the vertebrae of the neck.
Then he knifed her in the abdomen, inflicting heavy jagged cuts drawn down through her body from left to right. Again and again he mutilated her, though mercifully she was already dead.
That summer night in 1888, Mary Nichols became the first victim of Jack the Ripper. Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly were to follow her to the grave in the next three months.
Over the years, there have been Ripper suspects by the dozen. Was he an Irish sea captain, or a Jewish butcher, or a respected society doctor? Could he have been the society painter Walter Sickert, Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland, or even Queen Victoria's grandson, the Duke of Clarence?
This week, yet another theory will be put forward. To some Ripperologists, the suspect's name will not be new: James Maybrick, a Liverpool merchant who travelled regularly to London on business.
But proponents of the new theory believe their evidence - the results of rigorous experiments conducted on a pocket watch which they say belonged to Maybrick - is further proof that he was, indeed, the most famous serial killer in history.
This particular Ripper story begins in Liverpool in 1992 when Albert Johnson, a college caretaker, passed a jeweller's while on his way to deposit some savings with his building society.
For months he's been admiring a gold pocket watch dated 1846, in the window. That day he decided to part with some of his savings and buy the watch for £225. Once in his possession, he opened the elegant watch and saw the initials "A.C." engraved on it, along with some other letters too faint to read.
Intrigued, Johnson asked one of the lab technicians in the science department at Birkenhead Technical College where he worked to look at the watch under a microscope.
Other letters revealed themselves - five sets of initials in all: M.N., A.C., E.S., C.E., M.K. - while across the centre of the watch were scratched the words "I am Jack" and the name "J. Maybrick."
It was Johnson's colleague who made the connection with the Ripper. The name Maybrick was familiar to him, and it wasn't long before he remembered why.
A few months earlier, the Liverpool Echo had unveiled what was claimed to be the diary of Jack the Ripper - by one James Maybrick, who wrote in savage detail about the bloody murders of the five London prostitutes (women whose initials corresponded to those engraved on the watch).
After initial excitement, the Maybrick diary was dismissed as a hoax, but the discovery of the watch, and now the results of the tests on it, have put Maybrick back in the frame once more.
Jmaes Maybrick was a wealthy cotton merchant who was addicted to arsenic and strychnine - poisons which, in tiny doses, were administered by doctors of the time.
He had developed his drug habit while working in the cotton industry in Norfolk, Virginia, where malaria was rife.
Arsenic was then a routine treatment for malaria. It was, however, addictive, and addicts needed ever increasing doses. Over time, it induced dementia and was said to "rot" the brain.
Maybrick spent six years in America before, in his early forties, returning to Liverpool. It was on the boat back home in the summer of 1881 that he met and courted Florence Chandler, an 18 year old Southern belle.
They married, but it was not a happy union - her youth and his growing addictions were a problem from the start.
It may also have been a bigamous marriage, because according to census returns Maybrick had a wife already. Her name was Sarah Maybrick and she lived in Whitechapel in East London - the area that would become the Ripper's haunt.
Florence soon discovered that her husband was keeping a mistress - either that mysterious first wife, or another, unknown woman - and that he was paying her £100 a year even though he was, by that stage, in deep financial trouble. She banned her husband from the bedroom, and took a lover herself.
To Maybrick's anger and shame, Florence's flaunting of her lover became the gossip of Liverpool high society. In despair, he was driven to take more drugs, confiding in his diary his increasingly paranoid and violent thoughts.
Could it be that his rage also found an outlet in the brutal murder of prostitutes that are also detailed in that diary?
Maybrick died in 1889 - just six months after the last Ripper victim, Mary Kelly, had been butchered. Sensationally, Florence was convicted of poisoning him with arsenic in one the most high profile criminal cases of the period.
The prosecution claimed that she's obtained supplies of arsenic by soaking fly papers and extracting the poison, which she'd feed him in meat extract.
Although no fibres from fly papers were found in the meat extract and tests showed it was impossible to extract a lethal dose of arsenic from them anyway, Florence was found guilty and sentenced to death - a sentence that was later commuted. She was, however, innocent. Almost certainly arsenic did kill Maybrick - but it was the arsenic that he himself had bought to feed his addicition.
The chemist who sold him 300g of it shortly before his death put it simply in court: "I told him to be careful with it as he had almost enough to poison a regiment."
Florence was released after serbing just four years in prison. She returned to America and died there in 1941.
So where does Maybrick's pocket watch fit into the story? Like his diary, the watch has been dismissed as a hoax. Critics say that the initials of the murdered prostitute, and the words "I am Jack" and "J. Maybrick", have been scratched on its surface only recently. Alvert Johnson, the owner of the watch, insists this is not the case.
Now he has had the watch analysed by the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Using electron microscopy, Dr. Stephen Turgoose found tiny particles of brass lodged deeply in the engraved initials.
Since the watch case is gold, the brass must have come from the tool used to engrave the words. And the corrosion on that brass shows that it was not done in modern times.
A second investigation was carried out by Dr. Robert Wild, from the Interface Analysis centre at Bristol University. Dr. Wild confirmed that the markings are "at least several tens of years old," before adding that further dating tests could but the engravings in the late 1880s.
Albert Johnson feels there is no need to continue investigating the watch, as the scientists have suggested - for him, the new evidence is conclusive.
"We could go on for ever getting the watch tested but it wouldn't make any difference," he says. "People have already made up their minds - and those who don't believe the diary won't believe this either."
"But in my own mind, I have absolutely no doubt about who the Ripper was."
The new evidence on the Maybrick watch will appear on www.casebook.org.
(Message edited by Chris on November 23, 2004) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 10:37 am: |
|
One comment from the above article caught my eye:
It may also have been a bigamous marriage, because according to census returns Maybrick had a wife already. Her name was Sarah Maybrick and she lived in Whitechapel in East London
I have looked at censuses from 1871 to 1901 inclusive. There is only one Sarah Maybrick listed living in Lonodn in any of these. However, this was in 1881, at which time she was 69 and her husband was called William. She lived in Hackney and I dont think her name was Maybrick anyway!!! Loking carefully at the original return I read her name as Markwick.
Chris |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 11:43 am: |
|
Hi Chris et al.
Are there genuinely new results on the watch, or are these the old results of Turgoose and Wild that are going to be posted on the Casebook? This makes it sound as if the testing was just done but I don't think that is the case, is it?
Best regards
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
I don't know if there is any new evidence or what arrangements have been made to post them here. below is the end of the article which quotes the Casebook address.
Chris
 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 3:08 pm: |
|
I have a couple of questions,
ok first off who is this journalist woman and where did she get this 'story'[note still no reports up?] from? Did she get it from Johnson, or someone else with something to promote say feldy, or Shirley? Or frankly did she get it from a pile she had been sitting on waiting for a dull no news day?
ok thats that out of the way now we move onto the mention of the casebook, i am in no way trying to disrespect you guys here at the Casebook when i say, where the hell did she get that from. now i am quite aware that we have been awaiting these reports for many a day (and maybe they will be posted i am not suggesting otherwise just noting it ain't happened yet) where did this person we never heard of get this info from?
also i think this article was deliberatly misleading in suggesting these reports were new as far as i understand it there are no new watch reports only reports mentioned are thre old reports which have previously been witheld from various people.
Now maybe i missed something [like the reports?] in which case i do apologise - i only ask for some clarification from someone who may know!!
Jenni
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hi Chris G,
Since I can't imagine anyone finally deciding to do the proper and responsible thing and have the watch (and the diary) thoroughly retested in a setting where the scientists are given full and unlimited access to the material for testing and then taking it right back to the same two guys who did the first inconclusive tests to begin with, my guess is that there is nothing "new" about this evidence at all (unless this is a reprint of an article that was written years ago).
Rather, I suspect (and I hope I'm wrong -- but I'm not holding my breath) that these are the same old infamous watch reports, complete with their caveats about further tests needing to be done and conclusions only being what was possible given the limited access to material etc., that we've known about for years.
Now, if even those old reports are indeed going to turn up in their entirety here on the Casebook for everyone to read, that's great news. Of course, the prophecy of their publication has been around for some time, hasn't it? Like so many other promises...
Meanwhile, one is left with the question, "why now?" Why has this story resurfaced in the paper again? Why, with not a bit of new material anywhere that I can see in this report, are we reading about the watch and about Albert and Maybrick all again?
Slow news day?
Did someone call the Mail?
Is there a new book on the way?
Or will we see a new item on e-bay soon?
I have no idea.
Delighted, as always, to see the wheels spin,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 3:24 pm: |
|
John,
i called the Mail but not in the sense you mean!!
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 3:29 pm: |
|
ps the daily mail says
Whether you want to compliment us, criticise us or simply update us, we want to hear from you! Below you'll find all the email addresses you need.
editorial@dailymailonline.co.uk
The Daily Mail,
Northcliffe House,
2 Derry Street,
London W8 5TT
020 7938 6000
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Whatho all,
I didn't get past the first paragraph as the article is written in a style I can't stand. I wouldn't even believe the date on the Mail's masthead let alone the rest of the rubbish in it (it's never been the same since they threw Flook out).
Cheers, Mark (a Daily Telegraph reader so automatically thinks the Mail is crap) |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 556
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 9:03 pm: |
|
A similar article is in The Independent. |
phil lewis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Don't write to the mail. They stole all their info off this site anyway!!! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 6:48 am: |
|
Just checking.....
I love to hear about watch reports! |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 16
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 7:35 am: |
|
I am a member of a Yahoo group that Paul Feldman posts on. I have just tracked back through a few of his messages and there are hints that another edition of "The Final Chapter" will be released.
Was it he who leaked this story?
I think the important paragraph is the one was says
"Using electron microscopy, Dr. Stephen Turgoose found tiny particles of brass lodged deeply in the engraved initials.
Since the watch case is gold, the brass must have come from the tool used to engrave the words. And the corrosion on that brass shows that it was not done in modern times"
Didn't the late Melvin Harris explain perfectly that the tool used for the engraving would give the watch it's "age"?
Also why no mention of the additional 2 initials? Are these going to be conviently forgotten as 12 years later no-one can prove the "Manchester Murders"?
Strange that this story should appear again.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 7:39 am: |
|
Hey I've just read today's "Independent" report.
It was me who mentioned the 7 initals yesterday!!
Can I ask for payment?!!!
Lee |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi Lee,
Where do you get 7 from? You can't have seen any photos of the watch scratches, which clearly show only 5 sets of initials. The only other marks yet to be explained are the H 9/3 (or H 9 3) and the 1275, which were engraved over, and therefore after, the 'I am Jack'.
Hi Jenni,
Give us a flickin' chance dear! It's ok for others to twiddle their thumbs and tut, but some of us have less time to waste on such luxuries. 
I only read the Mail article myself yesterday on the bus to work in the afternoon. I don't buy any of the dailies on a regular basis (but always do the Telegraph cryptic crossword if I can pinch the copy at work). I was working again this morning, so have only just had a chance to post the text of the reports.
I volunteered to proof read the typed-up reports and post them on the casebook for Albert Johnson - a labour of love, which also involved finding out how to format certain bits of the reports.
The timing, accuracy and all editorial decisions regarding the Mail article are - it should go without saying - entirely beyond the control of mere mortals such as myself (and no, I didn't write it and don't know the person who did) and Albert. Even the named reporter's final draft will have been at the mercy of the powers that be.
Anyone who has ever written anything for publication will already be painfully aware of this fact of life.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:04 am: |
|
Hi Caroline,
I have seen many photographs of the watch but admitally not for some time. I was under the impression that there was a "JO" and another.
If I am wrong I will stand corrected.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:08 am: |
|
Caz,
i am glad, ok lets agree we are all happy!
Jenni
ps these reports are ten years old are they not? excuse me for being unconfident when it is alledged they will be published!! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:44 am: |
|
Hi Lee,
The JO is engraved on the outer case and has no apparent connection with the 5 victims' initials crudely scratched inside.
I understand that Albert thought at first that the H of the H 9 3 was TC until someone (possibly Mr Murphy, the jeweller who sold the watch to him) pointed out that it was in fact a 'copperplate' H. So Albert may well have introduced the idea of 7 sets of initials in total, even though only 5 sets obviously correspond with the named victims:
MN, AC, ES, CE and MK.
Believe me Jenni, no one can be more relieved than I am that the reports have finally become available to everyone who was waiting, patiently or otherwise.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Caz,
well i am glad you are relieved. now we can all talk bout the watch reports results/findings.
I am sure you will agree this will be fun, fun, fun!!!
Jenni
'terminally sceptic armchair hugger'!! |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:29 pm: |
|
A long long time ago John Hacker wrote:
"I do disagree about the 2 being inextricably linked though. If the watch were to be proved a modern creation, then the diary would survive. However if the diary were to be proved modern, then the watch would go with it. That's just my opinion though. "
Interesting how folks can look at different aspects of the puzzle and draw different conclusions. Which, of course, is the fun of escaping to 1888 for a few hours...
Howza 'bout THIS angle:
Watch scratches - old
Diary - newish but not brand new i.e. the 80s
And what it would hint at is an oldish effort to defame Maybrick based on old legends or just embittered friends/lovers/fans of Florence.
Plenty of flaws, I know.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 972
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Interesting speculation.
Now if only we could get both of the artefacts into professional labs where the scientists had full and complete access to them for thorough testing, we could start learning more about whether you might be right or wrong.
Some day,
--John |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:56 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
It is aknowledged that both the articles,watch and diary,are not modern.What is arguementative is the age of the writing in the diary,and the initials and words on the inside back of the watch cover.
Both have a modern origin.The diary writing is only traceable back to Mike Barret,and the initials and writing on the watch to Albert.
If one wishes to push the origin one step back in time,then one will have to establish a previous ownership,which,in the case of the watch, the initials were clearly identified,and in the case of the diary,the writing too was clearly established.
So far ,no one seems to be pushing very hard. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
"It is aknowledged that both the articles,watch and diary,are not modern.What is arguementative is the age of the writing in the diary,and the initials and words on the inside back of the watch cover."
I read this and I don't know whether to laugh, cry or just be offended. Is there anyone in the known world that doesn't agree that the watch and the diary are old in and of themselves?
"Both have a modern origin."
That's your opinion, and far from universally accepted. And one doesn't have to believe Maybrick was the Ripper to see more than a few possible permutations that involve one or both of these troublesome objects as old forgeries.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Robert,
yes I acknowledge the diary itself is of the right age and the watch likewise. it is their contents i would dispute!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 2:53 am: |
|
When the clown stops laughing,crying or being offended,perhaps he will give me the date of manufacture of the diary,and the year the back cover was fixed to the watch.
It is not my opinion that the writing in the diary,and the lettering on the back cover of the watch has their origin with Barret and Albert,that is established fact,and will remain so untill either someone,or some scientific fact prove otherwise. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 9:27 pm: |
|
"When the clown stops laughing,crying or being offended,perhaps he will give me the date of manufacture of the diary,and the year the back cover was fixed to the watch.
It is not my opinion that the writing in the diary,and the lettering on the back cover of the watch has their origin with Barret and Albert,that is established fact,and will remain so untill either someone,or some scientific fact prove otherwise."
Harry - somehow I think I'd like to agree with you, but I'm not sure what you're saying.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 743
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Hmmm
Harry, you seem to have as much trouble assigning the correct meanings to words as John does. Are yours just rhetorical games as well?
that is established fact,and will remain so untill either someone,or some scientific fact prove otherwise.
An established fact can't stop being an established fact, no matter what happens. Either it is an established fact, or it isn't. If it is an established fact, we can all leave this thread now. If there is a possibility that someone or some scientific evidence will indicate otherwise, then it isn't an established fact.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
Alan,
Spoken like someone who has never read the history of science.
If you are taking a true false test in the year 1273 and the question is:
"The sun goes around the earth."
You had better write down "True" if you want to get it right.
Why? 'Cause it was an "established fact."
Are we so foolishly egotistical nowadays to think that our own "established facts" might not similarly turn out to be just as false someday?
If not, then according to your rather neat but useless definition, there simply are no established facts, since there is always at least the possibility that someday "someone or some scientific evidence" beyond our current imagination "will indicate otherwise."
This has nothing to do with the watch or the diary, and of course I know what Harry meant concerning Albert's and Mike's status as the known owners of these objects when they became public. But I thought, since you love rhetorical precision so much, I should point it out to you.
Thanks again for visiting, and for mentioning my name,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 13, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
On the other hand... 
I'd like to enthusiastically second Alan Sharp's wise call for the production of "established facts" through "scientific evidence" in this case.
I'm sure Alan will agree with me, since this is the obvious logical and rational desire of anyone truly interested in learning the facts about these two items, that full and complete access to both of these items should be given to qualified professional scientists for the purposes of thorough testing using the latest technologies available, in order to learn all the "established facts" we can about them.
Why NOT finally have the "thorough investigation" that Dr. Wild explicitly called for? Why not learn all we can using science? Surely, that's what should be happening now with the watch and the diary.
Right, Alan?
--John |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 744
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
You are absolutely right John, I do agree with you, I do think we need to "establish the facts" through "scientific evidence" before we go about talking about "established facts".
And yes I do know the history of science John, but the point about history is that we sometimes learn from it (unfortunately not often enough). That's why no scientist today would ever describe something as an "established fact" unless he has "established" it as a "fact". Everything else he would refer to as a "theory".
(Sorry, if anyone cross posts before I edit this post, the word in the first sentence should obviously have been "do" and not "don't")
(Message edited by ash on January 13, 2005)
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
So immediate proper and thorough testing of both items is called for, as the logical and responsible thing to do.
Glad we agree.
Now, if only...
--John
PS: On an unrelated note -- given Alan's peculiarly stringent rhetorical definition, I can't think of anything anywhere that would ever properly qualify as an "established fact," since someday "someone or some scientific evidence" beyond our current imagination might always just "indicate otherwise."
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 745
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Indeed, proper and thorough testing of both items is called for. How big is the max limit on your credit card? These guys don't work for free.}
PS still unrelated, of course there are established facts, if John can't think of a single one he isn't thinking very hard. However, there are countless things we accept as fact which are not. Einstein developed the "theory" of relativity. We have the "theory" of evolution. The chaos "theory". The uncertainty "principle" (another word which doesn't mean fact). In a court of law you have to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", not proven as an established fact. If all these people can be careful about the wording they use, it can't be too difficult. But this is off topic.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 746
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Actually cancel those last words. It isn't off topic for this thread. Because it should really be pointed out that if we do have immediate proper and thorough testing of the items, this is exactly the language we see in the reports. Whether they decide they are new, old, genuine or put here by aliens from the planet Zog, the reports will be full of "this is most likely to mean" and "this seems to indicate". You are very unlikely to get any scientist worth his salt to call anything an "established fact" unless there is absolutely zero margin for error. But we will all accept the reports anyway, won't we?
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Ah yes, the old "money" excuse.
It's a sad and sorry red herring. The money can be raised, and fairly quickly too. I have first hand experience, having once collected pledges for an earlier diary testing project. People are ready, willing, and able.
But more to the point, the responsibility here rests with the owners of these artefacts to do the necessary things to learn the truth about them.
Tomorrow is the 14th.
Again.
What do you think will happen?
It's shameful,
--John
PS: Alan, two posts and you offer not one example of "an established fact" that meets your own criteria. What would one be? I suspect there are none, since using your own words, someday "someone or some scientific evidence" beyond our current imagination might always just "indicate otherwise."
(Message edited by omlor on January 13, 2005) |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 747
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
(Actually John, I think you'll find they were Harry's words, or at least most of them, I substituted one so that it was more accurate. Look again.) There are many scientifically established facts, I didn't think I needed to give examples as we're not in kindergarten. Babies can come out of women. I've watched three of them doing it. Are you going to tell me that someday "someone or some scientific evidence" is going to prove that they can't? Give me a break.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Nice try, Alan.
But you are offering as evidence for your "established fact," experience and observation which allow you logically to make a valid inductive conclusion. And, of course, what you think is "an established fact" now might easily become in some imagined future just something that might have once happened long ago (or someone's theory about what might have once happened) if things changed.
Interestingly, the very same criteria you offer here, observation and an accumulation of evidence based on both science and experience, is precisely what allows for the valid inductive conclusion that the real James Maybrick did not write this diary.
So, according to your own criteria, both of these are logically what you call "established facts."
Excellent.
We agree again.
--John
PS: If you are really restricting all "established facts" to purely and immediately self-evident items such as this specific biological example, then the phrase itself is fairly useless in discussing anything at all.
(Message edited by omlor on January 13, 2005) |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 748
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
So, according to your own criteria, both of these are logically what you call "established facts." Excellent. We agree again.
Once again, it wasn't me who brought up the term "established facts", I am merely seeking to define it. And you are in essence correct, that what is currently an established fact could semiotically cease to be so, but it will remain a truth nonetheless.
As to the rest, well we certainly don't agree. But I'm just going to assume that was another rhetorical game and give anyone reading the benefit of the doubt.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:04 pm: |
|
"A truth"? Really, Alan?
In what context, specifically?
Certainly not in the discourse or the functional operation of the language of the imagined future community for whom it is no longer an "established fact."
And we're not around.
And right there -- that's precisely the only way this discussion could end. With you recognizing that the original term is rendered largely useless for the purposes of this discussion if given such an extremely restrictive definition that it allows only for self-evident and mundane observations. That was the only effect of your deliberately rhetorical gesture.
And the one thing that hasn't changed?
A valid inductive conclusion based on observation and experience, scientific and otherwise, is still all you have to assert any "established fact." And that's all you need. And that's all that is needed to conclude, in a perfectly valid logical fashion, that this diary was not written by the real James Maybrick.
Oh, and one other thing hasn't changed.
The call for the owners of these two artefacts to do the responsible and ethical thing and step forward and provide qualified professionals full and complete access to this material for the purposes of thorough scientific testing using the latest technologies.
Now, who wants to make wagers on what the DiTA report is likely to say tomorrow? Or this time next year? Or the month that I die?
Sometimes you don't have to "know" the future to "know" the future,
--John (having a fun evening)
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 749
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Truth doesn't have a context John, something is either true or it isn't. I will concede that the word "established" in the phrase being discussed causes some problems, but as said it wasn't my phrase. Two hundred years ago nobody knew that the planet Pluto existed, so this was not an established fact, but it was true nonetheless. (and obviously we can go round in circles debating whether we have sufficient evidence to say for certain it exists now, but by the time we are finished everyone will either have gone to sleep or committed suicide)
As to whether or not you have done all that is needed to make your conclusion, again, I will give others the benefit of the doubt to make their own minds up on that one.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |
|
"Truth doesn't have a context."
That, Alan, is what they call "Faith."
And that's what I thought we were dealing with here all along.
Thanks for the confirmation,
--John
PS: The real James Maybrick did not write this diary. The handwriting alone makes that fact self-evident, not to mention any number of other pieces of similar evidence that allow for a valid logical inductive conclusion.
PPS: Even more "facts" would be made available if the owners of these two items ever decide to step up and finally do the right thing and provide qualified professionals with complete and unlimited access to this material for thorough testing. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 4:03 am: |
|
Hi John,
Not so long ago, you thought the chap who bought a ripper artefact off ebay for a couple of hundred smackers must have been crackers - more money than sense is what you implied.
Yet you repeatedly urge Albert, who has already invested more than £1,400 in his ripper artefact to throw more money - other people's money, if he can't afford it himself - at something you keep telling everyone is a worthless piece of junk.
I don't know who is crackers in this case, but it ain't Albert, and it ain't all the people you can't see rushing to donate a penny to get your rhetorical moral crusade off the ground.
This pointless ritual of repeating empty rhetorical demands, day in day out, which Albert would have to be made aware of first, and then have to be crackers to meet, and certifiably so if he knows the watch was hoaxed while in his possession, as you insist is as near as damn it to an established fact, reminds me of the chap who throws tiny pieces of paper from the railway carriage every day on his train journeys to and from work, to keep elephants off the track.
He is an intelligent man, who knows deep down that no elephants are going to put anyone's safety at risk if he fails to bring the bits of paper with him one day. But he just can't help himself, and can only feel that everything is right with his world (and the train safe from being derailed by a stray elephant) if he keeps the ritual going.
Now you are an intelligent man, John. But if you didn't keep your own little ritual going, of urging the owner of the watch (and how about the owner of the ebay artefact too? Why do you let him off the hook?) to do more tests, and then reporting triumphantly, on the exact same day of each month (lucky number 14 is it?), that your urges have fallen on deaf ears just like you safely predicted they would (not a very taxing prediction to make, considering the circumstances as I've outlined above), are you scared that Diary world would implode?
Is this obsessive role you play in it what gets you up in the morning? Is this really your destiny in life? Don't you sometimes yearn to be free of this self-imposed slavery?
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 5:25 am: |
|
As this thread is called testing the WATCH (predictable enough for you John O.) let me ask a question.
or rather some questions
Caz,
do you think the watch is a worthless piece of junk?
and secondly does Albert want to have further testing on the watch or would he rather we all shut up so he didnt have to worry about it anymore?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 6:32 am: |
|
If calling for the people who own these two items to do the proper thing, the responsible thing, in the name of history and in the name of learning, and finally provide qualified scientists full and unlimited access to this material for thorough testing -- if that is a "self-imposed slavery," then I am proud to be under its specific yoke.
Caroline might think it would be "crackers" for Albert and his co-owners in the case of the watch and Robert in the case of the diary to finally do the right thing, to finally submit their items to full and complete tests using the latest technologies.
If she does, that's a shame.
But it's not the real shame.
No, the real shame is not that someone hangs around here offering such lame explanations and excuses for NOT getting these things properly tested so that we are able to learn all we can about them. The real shame is not that someone is willing to go to such sad lengths just to keep the discussion going and to keep hope alive (when proper, thorough testing obviously threatens both).
No.
The REAL shame is that it still hasn't been done.
The REAL shame is that over TEN FULL YEARS ago Dr. Wild wrote that, due to the limited access he was granted the material, a thorough investigation was not possible and his own results were only preliminary and THAT IS STILL THE CASE TODAY.
The REAL shame is that the owner of this watch was told explicitly that more work needed to be done to get clear and definitive answers, and ten years later that work STILL has not been done.
The REAL shame is that it's been so many years since either the watch or the diary have seen the inside of proper lab and that this ridiculous game has been allowed to continue.
And I have no qualms at all about showing up here and pointing that out whenever people decide to talk about these two items.
Happy DiTA day all. This one seems a little sad.
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Jenni
does Albert want to have further testing on the watch or would he rather we all shut up so he didnt have to worry about it anymore?
Judging from what he recently said to the national press, the answer is "No and No"!
Chris Phillips
|
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
It seems that Alan Sharp has been seduced by the diary supporters. Haven't we heard his circular sort of argument somewhere before?
Who, we wonder, is the seducer? |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Alan,
If you mean do I Understand or have been taught the science of speech and grammer,the answer is no.I left school at the age of 14 and am now 77 years of age.Of the perhaps 95 per cent of posters like myself,who received most education in other than a class room envoiroment,we do the best we can,and I am sure that our meanings and thoughts are well understood.
When I write Origin,or in other words,the beginning,I believe you and others understand that the writing in the diary,and the initials on the back cover of the watch,did indeed start their known life with Barret and Albert,and have as yet no other known beginning.
If these posts are to become a contest of who writes the more correct grammer,then indeed I will lose out and so will most others.Argue on the facts,and not how they are always presented.
Oh,and check my spelling,I am sure you will find a mistake or two.
Sir Robert,
I am sure you will understand ,one day. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 3:52 am: |
|
Supposing that,one day,someone does decide to have the watch scratches re-examined,what,in peoples opinion,should be the instructions given to those who are chosen to carry out the testing.
My instructions would be,
(1) That tests should be conclusive as to whether the letters scratched on the inside back cover,can,without reservation, proven not to be of recent origin.
(2) Should the test prove the scratches to be of an earlier date than 1980,can a definate date,within a margin of 10 years,be made.
I await the laughing,crying and feeling of insult that this missive invokes. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Hi Harry,
I knew what you meant. And you are correct concerning the fact that so far no one has been able to place the writing in the diary or the initials on the watch as definitely having existed elsewhere before Mike and Albert brought them forward.
Sort of a significant fact, that.
I would add to the two items on your list that the scientists finally be given full and complete access to the material to be tested in both cases.
But I am not optimistic.
Have a fine day,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
On another thread, Sir Robert Anderson offered, as a concern about testing, Martin Fido's worry that as Robert put it,
"further tests might themselves be inconclusive."
Of course, logically this cannot be a reason to avoid further complete and thorough testing.
What "might" or "might not" happen when qualified professionals are finally provided with full and complete access to these materials in a proper laboratory setting using the latest technologies available remains to be seen. In fact, that's precisely WHY such tests MUST be done -- so that we can learn everything possible about the items.
Dr. Wild was quite clear in his report.
He wrote the following three passages:
"The amount of time the watch was available for examination was limited to only a few hours and as a result a thorough investigation was not possible and any conclusions are therefore preliminary at this stage."
and
"To give an accurate date to the watch from its surface composition and from the brass particles embedded in the base of the scratches it would be necessary to analyse several standards of known age, encompassing the age of the watch to recent time, of both brass and gold which had been known to have been exposed to similar conditions. This would involve a considerable amount of work."
and
"...it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work."
So obviously Dr. Wild himself DID believe that it was "possible to be more accurate" if more work was done.
And some time ago I spoke directly to the director of at least one very important and well-known lab in the US about the diary and he too expressed similar optimism regarding the diary if he was granted full and complete access to it.
Actually, more than one professional has said this to me.
So even assuming Martin is correct and there is the possibility that further tests might in fact not be conclusive, that should certainly not stop us and must not stop us from learning everything we can about both of these items from objective science.
Why not have the "thorough investigation" Dr. Wild's report calls for?
Why not give these two items over to the professionals, with full and complete access, so they can tell us everything they can?
Why not finally get this done?
It is the right thing to do.
I truly believe responsible people know that.
Now let's see if it ever happens.
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
",I believe you and others understand that the writing in the diary,and the initials on the back cover of the watch,did indeed start their known life with Barret and Albert,and have as yet no other known beginning. "
Harry, having taken a year off the Case has done some interesting things for me. Some things I thought absurd no longer appear as simple to me. My sole contention is that one or two of these items may be old hoaxes; I think Paul Begg would agree with that possibility, so I am not alone in the end zone, to use an Americanism.
And IF there is/are/was old hoaxes involved, it may tie into the Case at large.
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.
|
|
|
|
