|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1021
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:55 pm: | 
|
Sir Robert,
You write:
"My sole contention is that one or two of these items may be old hoaxes..."
And I would think that since this is your sole contention you would want everything possible done to confirm or deny it using objective data produced by the latest technology available.
I know I do.
Hoping we can agree at least on this simple, common sense desire,
--John
PS: So far, Harry is correct about what we know.
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 752
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
Careful, you'll be accused of having been seduced by the diary supporters. I've been seduced. It was that foxy little minx Robert Smith wot dun it!
AAD
Now who's not reading posts correctly. I challenge you to find one moment in any of my posts when I have claimed the diary or watch to be genuine. I have merely argued that nobody should claim to know more than they actually do.
Harry
I agree with you. Nobody has been able to demonstrate that the writing was in the diary or the scratches were in the watch before they were in the hands of Mike Barrett and Albert Johnson. Equally, nobody has been able to demonstrate that those particular persons were the ones who put them there. That's the point, we simply don't know, and therefore should not be claiming that we do.
And last but never least John
Lets not go round in circles. How about this. You state that you have spoken to a number of professionals about this. How about you provide a list of exactly which tests should be done or can using current technology be done (these professionals should be able to tell you), which laboratories are capable of doing them, and exactly how much they are going to cost. Oh, and if those laboratories in question claim that they can positively guarantee that those tests will be conclusive, one way or the other, because you can hardly expect people to subscribe hard earned money if at the end of all the effort they are going to wind up exactly where they are now.
Or did you mean that these things have to be handed over randomly to any laboratory that wants to have a go and that they should just keep on trying every test they have until they come up with a conclusive answer. In which case a blank cheque will be required. Good luck getting your "subscribers" to stump up that one.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Alan,
I'm not trying to start a fight here but if all we are going to end up with is where we are now? Well no tests= we are where we are now anyway, surely?
But anyway
Cheers
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Alan chimes in, mentioning my favorite minx, and then practically quotes him verbatim, asking:
"if those laboratories in question claim that they can positively guarantee that those tests will be conclusive, one way or the other..."
So let's start here.
Absolutely not.
No scientific laboratory and no self-respecting scientist under any circumstances will guarantee the conclusiveness of their results before ever even seeing the material to be tested, let alone being allowed to run their tests.
That's absurd.
It's a delicious ploy to avoid sending anyone the material, but it's patently and demonstrably absurd.
Oh, and I love the suggestion that I should be the one to contact these laboratories and gather all this information and arrange for all this data and pricing.
That's my very favorite ploy.
Obviously, I am not the one who owns these things. I am not the one responsible for their future. (I am not the one claiming that they might be real either -- both the owners are.)
There are specific answers to each of the questions Alan asks. If the owners of these two suspicious artefacts wish to step up themselves and do the proper thing, the responsible thing, in interests of history and a complete set of objective data, they can always do so.
Suggesting that someone else should do it is the height of arrogance and misdirection. It also makes no real sense.
This truly amazes me.
Here we have a set of threads and a constantly ongoing discussion concerning two clearly suspicious historical artefacts and we can't even get simple agreement that the owners of these artefacts should be doing EVERYTHING HUMANLY POSSIBLE to provide qualified professionals with full and complete access to these artefacts for the purposes of thorough testing using the latest technologies available.
Incredible.
The fact that this suggestion is even being debated, that there are people here who refuse even to agree to this simple and obvious conclusion is staggering and it demonstrates precisely why these hoaxes have been allowed to remain around for so long without Dr. Wild's called-for "thorough investigation."
It's shameful and it represents the worst sort of intellectual irresponsibility.
And I, for some reason, find myself continually surprised to see it day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.
When I was young, my father would give me chores. I would look for all sorts of excuses not to do them -- why I couldn't at the moment, why I didn't have enough time, why my brother should do them, why I was too tired, all the rest. I knew they needed to be done, that they were my responsibility, but I just wanted to avoid them. Finally, when my father had had enough, he looked at me sternly, and said four simple words. "Just get it done." And I knew he was right. And I would.
I recognize the behavior on these boards and elsewhere about this issue all too well. And I know that these tests will probably never take place. And I know why. And I am embarrassed for some and simply amused by others.
Amazing,
-John
PS: Alan, if you send me private e-mail, I'll tell you exactly what I was told and by whom and what lab he directs and how you can contact him if you'd like.
PPS: I notice you came here and wrote:
"I have merely argued that nobody should claim to know more than they actually do."
You might want to go back and read a post or two by you above about your faith in the eternal nature of truth, Alan, and see if you haven't "claimed to know more than you actually do." After all, knowledge and belief, as you constantly remind us, are two different things, aren't they?
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 753
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Yes indeed, but I'm not sure many people on here understand exactly what John is asking for when he keeps insisting that the responsible thing to do is to give the professionals full and complete access with the latest tests and technologies.
The tests done before, the "inadequate" tests, cost what was it? £1400? That was over ten years ago. Given inflation these tests would be probably £2000 now, and that's a conservative estimate. But we're not talking a repeat of those tests, we're talking new tests, more thorough tests, tests which take a long time. We're talking ten times that amount. At the very least. Just for the watch. In fact for all the tests John is suggesting these people have an obligation to get done, I would be very surprised if the cost remained within five figures.
Lets put it this way. If myself and Caz agreed right here and now to donate every penny in royalties we earned from our respective books this year towards this testing, it wouldn't even make a dent. If Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman all agreed to go in on the deal with us, it still wouldn't come close.
But Albert Johnson is expected to stump up all this cash because "it's the right thing to do". In fact he is behaving irresponsibly if he doesn't.
Now firstly lets assume Albert did fake the watch himself. Well, fine, if it ends up bankrupting him, no more than his just desserts.
But now lets assume he didn't. In this case, because he bought a watch which happened to have some controversial scratches in it, he is to end up destitute in order to do "the right thing". In fact he would certainly have to sell the watch to pay for the tests, and I'm pretty sure everybody here sees where the logic breaks down there.
So I am not saying here that this full and thorough testing shouldn't be done. It should, make no bones about it. But I think everybody has to be realistic about exactly what that entails.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
NO ONE WANTS TO BANKRUPT ALBERT JOHNSON WHETHER HE FAKED THE WATCH OR NOT!!
are we clear on this?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Imagine that we wanted to test the watch...no hold on we do there's no need to imagine it!
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
More excuses.
Alan has no real idea what any specific set of tests would cost. I know that because he just requested that I find out.
He also has no real idea how much money can be raised to conduct them once we know.
So, as I have been repeatedly saying, what we have as usual is just speculation, conflicting interpretations, statements of pure desire, but no real facts.
And there will continue to BE no real facts until the owners of both the watch and the diary do the honest and responsible thing and arrange to have these items thoroughly and properly tested, all excuses aside.
That's the "realistic" truth concerning the state of affairs here at the moment. And it is not going to change anytime soon.
Is anyone surprised?
Not me,
--John
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 754
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Nope, you're right there, I have no real idea what any specific set of tests would cost. I'm guessing. I made that pretty clear.
Do you have any real idea? If so, would you share it with the group? Or tell you what, why don't you guess just like I did. Would your estimate be very far away from mine?
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Actually, rather than guess, I think I'll suggest that the actual owners of these two artefacts ought to be finding just this sort of thing out.
They've only had TEN YEARS now to do so!
I know you'll consider that a radical and incredible suggestion.
But it makes perfect sense to me.
Waiting for the right thing to be done by those who own the watch and diary,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
"But Albert Johnson is expected to stump up all this cash because "it's the right thing to do". "
Alan - I have a question for you. I've read in many places that Albert is a charming man, which is all well and good. But I don't remember ever reading as to what the fellow does, or did do, for a living.
I ask because it would appear to me that no one, authors nor owners, are exactly coining a mint here, and so it is fair to say they can't carry the full boat.
Is Albert of reasonable means? I am not saying that if he's wealthy he has any obligation, moral or otherwise, I'm just asking.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
it's quite simple in order to know if it can be afforded first you need to kmnow how much it will costs. has albert or ANY of us actually had a look.
I admit i haven't looked to see how much watch tests would costs. have you?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
"Nobody has been able to demonstrate that the writing was in the diary or the scratches were in the watch before they were in the hands of Mike Barrett and Albert Johnson."
I'd add that from what I've read to date about Barrett, he's probably not the person who actually created the document. Personally, I am as convinced of that as I am that the diary is a forgery.
The Watch and Albert Johnson seem to me to be horses of a different color, which is why if we had the ability to test only one Relic, it'd be the Watch.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Once again, as Jenni has said, no one here has ever proposed that Albert be "expected to stump up all this cash." That's a red herring.
As for the obligation question -- that's another matter entirely.
Albert and his partners own this watch. Robert owns this diary. They are both historically suspect articles that claim to be authentic.
Consequently, it is clearly the responsibility of the owners to do the proper thing and to arrange to have these suspect articles finally tested in a situation where qualified professionals are given full access to them using the latest scientific technologies so that we might learn as much as possible about them in an objective way.
They have had over ten full years to do this. The watch owners were even told explicitly by Dr. Wild that further tests were necessary and would be more accurate and that he could not offer anything but preliminary results because he was not granted full access to the material.
Ten full years.
And nothing. With either artefact.
Still.
Interesting.
And so this stupid discussion on these boards continues.
It boggles the mind,
--John |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 755
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
I'm sorry, I don't know what he did for a living. I've just tried to look it up but can't find a reference to it. Caz would be the person who could answer that one. The mention that his work collegues checked the watch under a microscope indicates that he worked in some industry where microscopes were fairly accessible, but that could be any number of things.
From conversations I've had with Caz though I can say I'm pretty sure he isn't a wealthy man, although presumably he can't be poor as a church mouse or he wouldn't have been able to afford to buy the watch in the first place!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Perhaps it should be mentioned here that, as I recall, Albert Johnson is not the sole owner of the watch.
Or has that changed?
Just a reminder,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
What is the point in arguing that it would cost too much or it wouldn't if you don't know how much it would cost to have the watch tested in the way Dr Wild would have liked?
What tests are they that need doing on the watch?
Lets get down to some facts here. if he doesn't have to pay is Albert objectionable to tests, i've asked this once i know, sorry if i missed the answer, because in that case (ie if he is)there's even less point talking about it.
Hi Robert,
only one needs to be genuine for James maybrick to be JTR (before John kills me!) not that i think either are!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
"Hi Robert,
only one needs to be genuine for James maybrick to be JTR (before John kills me!) not that i think either are!"
I don't believe Maybrick was JtR either.
However, not to nit pick, but if the Watch tests as genuine (whatever that means) it is also reasonable to conclude that either it's an old hoax, pure and simple, or it's an old effort to besmirch John Maybrick. I don't think tests would lead us to the Ripper.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Just to be clear, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Maybrick.
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
"just to be clear, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Maybrick"
You're on the Suspects list for other reasons.
(Message edited by sirrobert on January 16, 2005)
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Fair enough.
Just didn't want to be "besmirched."
It sounds dirty. 
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
John,
are you sure you are not a Maybrick...has Feldy looked into your family tree...?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Well, I guess I can't say for sure. At least not until Time Reveals All.....
--John (in the world of hoaxes) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 5:46 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Do I think the watch is a worthless piece of junk?
I have no way of knowing what to think, since no one - apart from Albert - seems to have any real idea when the scratches were made; weren’t made; who made them; who didn’t make them.
Despite John’s objections, it’s a matter of fact, not opinion, that Albert either knows his watch was hoaxed shortly before he took it into work (he was employed as a caretaker in a technical college) and got the scratches ‘discovered’, and has been knowingly deceiving everyone, including his family and friends, ever since; or the scratches were already in the watch when he bought it in 1992.
Don’t let John mislead you over this one; these are the only viable options - based on Albert’s own insistence that his watch remained untouched in his drawer, with no one knowing it was even there (unless John includes Albert’s wife or daughter in a modern hoax conspiracy theory) until he decided, unprompted, to take it into work.
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?
Again, I have no way of knowing what Albert wants. If he has been deceiving everyone for over a decade about what was happening to his watch in May 1993, how would we recognise a straight answer from him today about what he truly wants?
Hi John,
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.
I see you’ve deliberately missed the point again here. No - anyone, you included, would think Albert crackers, and Robert crackers, to test their artefacts, knowing them to be modern hoaxes. You believe the watch is a modern bandwagon hoax, a theory that simply doesn’t allow for Albert’s ignorance - as I told Jenni, that’s a matter of fact, not opinion.
You are the one calling for Albert to submit an item that you insist was hoaxed while in his possession (something Albert maintains could not have happened without his knowledge). Your argument would make Albert crackers - he would be helping to expose his involvement in the bandwagon hoax you insist we are dealing with here. It would be easier and quicker for him just to confess and have done with it.
Anyway, it’s quite pointless for you to keep calling for Albert to do ‘the right thing’ if the man himself is totally unaware of what you are asking of him and why. Your first step should have been to find out whether Albert would be willing to have further tests done, along the lines recommended by Dr. Wild, if adequate funding could be made available.
As with Robert Smith and the diary, previous testing has proved inconclusive, and future testing must be seen not to be influenced by the owners of the artefacts. So even you concede that Albert, like Robert, cannot be expected to go round with the hat collecting other people’s hard-earned cash to throw at what you insist is a worthless piece of modern junk (and what Albert knows is a worthless piece of modern junk if you are right).
I see you are also conceding that ‘there will continue to BE no real facts’ unless or until fresh evidence emerges. No real facts, despite your claims about clear textual evidence in the diary; no real facts, despite your efforts to suggest the watch could have been scratched under Albert’s nose by The Invisible All-Seeing, All-Knowing Man, who then hypnotized Albert into taking it to work, opening the back and finding His handiwork. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, you might like to know what your chosen metallurgy expert Chris Phillips is saying over on another thread:
This sort of thing is discussed peripherally from time to time - for example, could money be raised by subscription for further testing of the Maybrick artefacts? Not a thing I would advise anyone to spend any money on, even if permission were forthcoming from the owners of the artefacts (nor would I wish a sensible thread of discussion to be dragged down into the maelstrom of Maybrickery).
Nice to know that not all modern hoax conspiracy theorists are clones who are incapable of independent thought. I’ve noticed a tendency to label anyone a ‘diary supporter’, if they so much as question a single point made by the modern hoax conspiracy theorists. By far the quickest and easiest way to make oneself popular or unpopular on these boards is to dismiss the diary and watch as shoddy modern fakes, or to question the arguments for doing so, respectively.
Following the herd and basking in the general approval may feel like a safe bet. But when the sheepdog finally goes bonkers, it would be nice to think the whole silly flock won’t allow itself to be herded over the edge of a steep cliff.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Oh, and in case you were wondering, you might like to know what your chosen metallurgy expert Chris Phillips is saying over on another thread:
Damn! I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the fatal word "Maybrick", even on a sensible thread.
Talk of the devil and his imps appear ...
Isn't it funny how Mrs Morris just can't get certain things into her head, no matter how many times they are explained to her?
She knows perfectly well I have never claimed to be a "metallurgy expert", yet here she is repeating the phrase again.
As she is so offended by what she perceives as rhetoric on the part of others, perhaps she could help her readers by flagging up the points at which she is saying, for effect, something she knows to be untrue. Perhaps these bits could be printed in a different colour, or something?
Chris Phillips
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 781
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Caroline,
If the watch had just been laying there in a drawer for a while, why all of a sudden was Albert "unprompted" to bring it into work and show it off?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
Caz,
Ok you've got me. frankly i'm confused.
First of all Albert would only know how old the scratches were if he put them there. Please be careful what you imply. One minute you seem to imply he did put them there and the next he could not. personally I have said my piece on that matter. if the scratches were already on the watch when Albert bought it he still doesn't know HOW old they are just that they are older than 1992. which is presumably what he says.
it would easy to recognise a straight answer on that matter. But anyway...nevermind!
I was only asking if you thought the watch was a worthless piece of junk because you seemed to imply that John thought it was and so what was the point getting it tested. I thought wow, sudddenly we do things around here based just on what John wants? Whats come over Caz, is she feeling ok? Surely the truth and not whether or not John thinks the watch is a worthless piece of junk is what is important (no offence John!!)
And no i'm not letting John deceive me. Last time i checked i used my own brain, so please try to keep that in mind! Ok with you?
And in your post to John you mention no one thinks Albert would be crackers etc..i'm pretty sure you implied that earlier, but am prepared to be wrong!
And try not to insult us all randomly if you can, unless you are trying to p**s me off in which case continue!
Still hugging the arm chair here wondering what you are on about cliffs etc!
Jenni
ps bah bah brain! what the diary is fake because John says so! geez! is this how i talk?
(Message edited by jdpegg on January 18, 2005)
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Oh good,
Something to do.
Let's go slowly.
Caroline writes,
"Despite John’s objections, it’s a matter of fact, not opinion, that Albert either knows his watch was hoaxed shortly before he took it into work (he was employed as a caretaker in a technical college) and got the scratches ‘discovered’, and has been knowingly deceiving everyone, including his family and friends, ever since; or the scratches were already in the watch when he bought it in 1992."
Caroline better read Alan Sharp's posts more carefully if she is going to offer this idea as a "matter of fact." Alan could tell her the difference between knowledge and belief in more exquisite detail than I can.
Or perhaps she was just being rhetorical.
No "matter of fact" can ever be based solely on Albert's "own insistence that...." Personal testimony from the person in question cannot by itself establish matter of fact, especially if the person in question is, shall we say, an interested party.
Trust and faith are completely different things than matters of fact.
Now for the second point.
My call has always been for Albert and Robert to do the right thing and have these suspect items tested thoroughly, especially if they believe the items might be authentic (and they both have said they do).
Both of these men say they have had nothing to do with creating these hoaxes, right? And they both believe they have authentic items, right?
Then it's simple.
Get the items tested properly by qualified scientists who are given complete access to the material.
That's a no-brainer.
And yet it's been years and years and years and it still hasn't been done.
That's shameful.
(Even more shameful than the embarrassing spectacle of Caroline coming here every day to try and excuse it.)
Just get it done.
If Robert truly thinks the thing he has might be authentic, then it's his responsibility to have it thoroughly and properly tested scientifically.
The same goes for Albert and his partners.
I still don't see why there is even controversy about that logical and common sense assumption.
I mean, after all, what have they got to lose?
(OK, that question WAS rhetorical.) 
And saying "it's someone else's job" is childish, evasive, and nonsensical. It's a cheap and easy way to avoid getting the thing done. Other people can help, of course. Both financially and strategically. But the obvious responsibility lies with the owners. And that we're still here a decade later talking about this is just ridiculous.
For god's sake, the owners of these things should finally stand up and take responsibility for getting the proper things done.
Oh, and Caroline is right. I should have written "no NEW real facts." The real facts we already have tell us without exception one thing -- the diary was not written by the real James Maybrick. It's a hoax. I'm not even going to write the list again. It starts with the handwriting, travels through all the textual problems and ends with the timing of the "discoveries" and the complete lack of provenances (for either item). These things are clearly hoaxes.
But that conclusion in no way absolves the owners of them, both of whom have made public claims about their potential authenticity, to do the ethical thing, and submit them for a thorough and proper scientific investigation, as called for in the Wild report, by qualified professionals who are given full and complete access to the material to be tested.
The fact that they still haven't done so, after all these years, is just sad.
Gee, and this thread had gotten so friendly and pleasant.
Ah well.
Back to the silly circles of endless discussion while the labs sit empty, the owners do nothing, and there is as always nothing new and nothing real.
In a world without shame,
--John
PS: Hi Jenni -- I don't think Caroline was saying that just because I write that the diary and watch are hoaxes, they shouldn't be properly and thoroughly tested. I think (I hope) she was just being "rhetorical." It's something she does quite often, as Chris has just pointed out.
(Message edited by omlor on January 18, 2005)
(Message edited by omlor on January 18, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1657
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
I’ve noticed a tendency to label anyone a ‘diary supporter’, if they so much as question a single point made by the modern hoax conspiracy theorists.
know one is calling you a diary supporter.
not that that is suddenly offensive or anything, right? i mean do you think that there's something wrong with being a diary supporter?
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on January 18, 2005)
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
Jenni,
I don't know. Is it better or worse than being an athletic supporter?
"Not that there's anything wrong with that,"
--John (making bad puns and tossing in a random Seinfeld reference just for fun) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1658
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
Hey John,
I don't know YOU tell me isn't that how Caz implies things work around here!
Jenni
ps ever think you took something the wrong way. ever think you'll know if you were right to.
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
In her post of the 14th of january to which i replied and she refers in her answer to me John,
../4922/15026.html"#DEDDCE"> |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I was just expressing a hope about Caroline's rhetoric. Actually, the point remains the same. These things should both be properly and thoroughly tested, and, especially given their public claims concerning possible authenticity, the fact that the owners haven't managed to do that for years and years now is just pathetic.
But I do understand your point. 
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 782
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Oh pishal it's going to take too long for Caroline to come around to the debate so I am just going to go ahead and ask straight out my point. Were any of Albert Johnson's colleagues every questioned about the fortuitous discovery of the scratches? I mean it just happened they were having a conversation about watches, Albert just happened to bring his in, Albert just happened to open up the back casing when demonstrating how it worked (uh tell me why on that one again please)...So anyway, were they ever questioned about how all these fortuitous coincidences all happened to line up?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
Caz,
I have been thinking really a little bit about what you say in your above post(I bet THAT surprises you?!)
Anyway,
you state,
Nice to know that not all modern hoax conspiracy theorists are clones who are incapable of independent thought. I’ve noticed a tendency to label anyone a ‘diary supporter’, if they so much as question a single point made by the modern hoax conspiracy theorists. By far the quickest and easiest way to make oneself popular or unpopular on these boards is to dismiss the diary and watch as shoddy modern fakes, or to question the arguments for doing so, respectively.
Following the herd and basking in the general approval may feel like a safe bet. But when the sheepdog finally goes bonkers, it would be nice to think the whole silly flock won’t allow itself to be herded over the edge of a steep cliff.
let's just clarify what exactly it is you are saying. And who exactly it is you are saying it about shall we just for the record.
i note your not saying it about John (though quite what you are saying about John is still a question i mean I assume he is the sheepdog in your wonderful analogy?) and Chris, and think that pretty much leaves me (and a few others too?)
If you have a problem with me why not come straight out with it instead of implying it?
that is after all how grown ups act,
even sheep have feelings Caz!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 761
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Did I hear my name mentioned?
Caroline better read Alan Sharp's posts more carefully if she is going to offer this idea as a "matter of fact." Alan could tell her the difference between knowledge and belief in more exquisite detail than I can.
I'm going to agree with you 100% John. Does this surprise you?
There is indeed a third possibility. If we take Caz's first two possibilities being that either Albert knew about the scratches (because he either put them there or someone else did so with his knowledge), or they were there when he bought the watch. Now, what's the third possibility.
Well if you rule out the first two, the only other possibility is that someone put them there while the watch was in Albert's possession, without him knowing about it. Bingo! (However, I believe this was the point Caz was trying to make, so I guess I don't really need to explain it to her after all).
Can't think how this can have happened myself, but there we go. Possibly space aliens, or the bloke on the grassy knoll. Anyhoo, it is a possibility, so we can't rule it out without further investigation.
Glad to see you're getting the hang of this, John!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
See, I knew Caroline wasn't paying attention to your repeated warnings. But that's OK -- neither do you yourself sometimes.
So much for "matters of fact."
Your truth, my truth, Caz's truth, Albert's truth, it all goes 'round and 'round pointlessly and will until the owners step up and do the right thing and we can get some solid, objective information.
Like that's really going to happen...
I trust you got my e-mails,
--John (shepherding the flock as always) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1666
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 4:41 am: |
|
Alan,
but that is technically possible, like so many things in diary world, just because things don't suit us and are technically possibly doesn't mean they aren't possible.
Admittedly i don't think it happened and i think it highly if not astronomically unlikely but even then....
what's possible is possible!
"So what you think about that now you know how I feel?"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:25 am: |
|
Sounds familiar Jenni.
You know, you'd think with all the things Caroline claims ARE possible, from Mike performing library miracles to "tin matchbox empty" not coming from the document that says "tin matchbox empty" to the Poste House not being the Poste House to the murderer forgetting what he did with the body parts to the handwriting looking nothing at all like the real James but still somehow inexplicably being his to the timing of these two "discoveries" just being a coincidence, she'd be a little careful about what she claims is NOT possible.
Oh well, I guess sometimes convenience outweighs consistency, even for the best of us.
Off to work,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 19, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
John,
fairs fair. I mean I wouldn't want to get accused of being a sheep following mad dogs over cliffs now would i? Oh hang on that already happened!
Anyway, I got a little diverted there sorry, it's possible that someone could have taken the watch from Albert and put the scratches on it and put it back. Why the hell they would do that is another matter. And let's be honest it's not high up on the list of things that could have happened. its about 50th on the most likely way the watch was forged list but still.....
And John,
tin match box empty, why do you bring that up you know it does my head in!
And John,
the library IS possible, get over it!! That one is also far more likely than people stealing and scratching watches before returning them knowing there work may never be discovered without the owner realising the scratches had appeared over night at any rate. But anyway...
what's your point what's possible IS possible.
It's what isn't possible thats important.
And we know Jamnes Maybrick didn't touch either aretefact...don't we?
Jenni
ps baaaa ba baa ba baaaa ba!
pps that sheep code !
baaaa
"So what you think about that now you know how I feel?"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Look at the list again. Remember, they ALL need to have happened simultaneously...
All of them.
Or...
Still watching for cliffs,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
John,
just remember some of them couldn't have happened/can't be explained.
Aside John the probabilty of something happening occures in isolation to other events....
and thats not all some things (library) remain possible.
some things (poste house) remain possible only because we hug our arm chairs....
some things (scratching without Albert knowing/realising whilst in his possession) remain possible only a sense that is totally abstract from reality.
But that doesn't stop me mentioning it (and you know why!)
Jenni
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
and heres one from earlier quack!
"So what you think about that now you know how I feel?"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
Jenni,
But unless every single one of them happened all simultaneously...
Well, you know.
--John (just stating the obvious) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
Jenn,
Thought Id find you here....I didnt get all your text Buddy.
Monty
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Monty,
I'm sure you got the drift. have emailed you.
John,
yes everyone would have had to happen at once.....
except for eg one is that a place could have been called something, that's hardly amazing and anyway they could all be true and that still wouldn't make james maybrick JTR,
or did I miss something
Jenni
ps there goes a flying pig!
"So what you think about that now you know how I feel?"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Let me be very clear.
The list ranges from Mike performing library miracles to "tin matchbox empty" not coming from the document that says "tin matchbox empty" to the Poste House not being the Poste House to the murderer forgetting what he did with the body parts to the handwriting looking nothing at all like the real James but still somehow inexplicably being his to the timing of these two "discoveries" just being a coincidence.
Every one of these remarkable events (and there are others), including the Poste House not being the Poste House that is right there in Liverpool now, MUST have happened all at once for one conclusion to be even POSSIBLE.
If just one of them did NOT happen (any one of them) then that conclusion is no longer possible.
That's where we are.
That's the sort of extreme situation we are in.
That's why I love this World.
Enjoying the exercise,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
Apologies for the delay in replying, I only just read the latest posts on this thread. Yours are useful questions which serve to put everything in context.
According to the testimony of Albert, and his workmates, interviewed separately, they were all discussing BBC TV’s Antiques Roadshow prog, which included an item on an antique gold watch, and there was some sort of dispute about the gold content of watches of a certain age. Albert mentioned that he owned an 18 carat gold pocket watch dating back to 1846, and promised to bring it in and show them. He did so, and showed them how to open the back and front. Albert claims the light from the window allowed him, as well as his witnesses, to see the scratches for the first time. No one present reported any suspicions that Albert had set up the whole thing, or had seen the scratches before.
Hi Jenni,
Now then, all I meant was that Albert has a better idea than anyone else because he at least knows whether he made the scratches or not; he at least knows if they were made, or if there was an opportunity for them to be made, after the watch came into his possession. If he knows he didn’t make the scratches himself, and knows that no one else knew the watch was sitting in his drawer, when the Antiques Roadshow aired and he decided to take it into work, he also knows the scratches were already there in 1992.
I don’t have to be careful what I imply, because I am not the one claiming the watch was scratched in May 1993, as a result of the emerging diary publicity. The only evidence being used to support this claim is the suspicious timing of the discovery. So for the claim to be valid, it’s a given that Albert is being accused at the very least of using the Antiques Roadshow prog as the starting point for setting up this ‘timely’ discovery, and therefore lying about noticing the scratches for the first time.
And since Albert insists that no one had the means or opportunity to access and tamper with his watch without his knowledge, the claim that someone did get access and did make the scratches comes with the clear implication that it must therefore have been done with Albert’s knowledge.
John is badly missing the point when he says we can’t base a matter of fact ‘solely on Albert’s “own insistence that…”’
Either Albert is telling the truth, that no one could have hoaxed the watch without his knowledge (in which case the bandwagon hoax claim would only still be valid if the watch was hoaxed with his knowledge), or Albert is lying, and knows at the very least that someone could have known about the watch, known where it was kept, and could have tampered with it. And that would still not explain how the hoaxer planned to get the scratches discovered, without Albert’s knowledge, or the BBC’s timely co-operation.
Whichever way you look at it, the bandwagon hoax claim necessarily makes a liar and therefore a hoaxer, or co-hoaxer, out of Albert.
Alan is right - ‘the only other possibility is that someone put them there while the watch was in Albert's possession, without him knowing about it.’
But if that’s what happened, Albert is lying when he insists that would have been impossible and explains why.
Jenni, regarding John’s worthless piece of junk: I have merely been suggesting that it might prove rather difficult to persuade anyone to donate a penny towards testing something that John claims is an obvious piece of worthless modern junk. Chris Phillips (who has now confirmed he is no metallurgy expert, despite his claims to be able to interpret and criticise the work of Drs. Turgoose and Wild, wowing John in the process) has proved my point, by advising everyone against donating to this cause, which makes John’s task even harder, and the task he has set Albert nigh on impossible.
Not only does Albert apparently remain blissfully unaware of John’s repeated calls for him to do the right thing, but Chris is now doing his level best to prevent Albert from being able to fund new tests by telling everyone not to cough up.
I was talking specifically about modern hoax conspiracy theorists, who can’t or won’t even consider any other possibilities. So if that particular cap doesn’t fit you, I wasn’t talking about you, ok?
It’s pretty obvious that the vast majority of posters who use the term ‘diary supporter’ do not mean it as a compliment! They also tend to use it to suggest that anyone not immediately falling in line with every aspect of modern hoax ‘speak’ has somehow been ‘got at’ by the enemy, and infected. Anyone who questions anything here may as well carry a bell around with them afterwards, and shout “unclean” .
But there is hope yet, since two of the most vehement modern hoax conspiracy theorists differ so fundamentally over whether it’s worth pouring other people’s money into new tests.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Chris Phillips (who has now confirmed he is no metallurgy expert, despite his claims to be able to interpret and criticise the work of Drs. Turgoose and Wild ...
By George, I think she's got it!
No, I am not a metallurgy expert, but yes, I am able to interpret and criticise the work of Drs Turgoose and Wild.
As can anyone reasonably intelligent with a decent scientific education.
My point in a nutshell!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 19, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Lots of words again From Ms. Morris.
Fortunately, very little content that is not simply repetition.
Responding will be easy.
Here's the flaw in her logic:
Whichever way you look at it, the bandwagon hoax claim necessarily makes a liar and therefore a hoaxer, or co-hoaxer, out of Albert.
Alan is right - ‘the only other possibility is that someone put them there while the watch was in Albert's possession, without him knowing about it.’
But if that’s what happened, Albert is lying when he insists that would have been impossible and explains why.
Nonsense. Because there is at least one other obvious possibility: that Albert is simply and naively mistaken when he says no one would have had a chance to scratch the watch and that someone did so without his knowing it.
This possibility, no matter how likely or unlikely, does not require that Albert be lying or that he be a hoaxer or a co-hoaxer and would still account for the watch being scratched after he bought it.
So Caroline has set up a false piece of logic.
And before she claims that this other scenario is "impossible," I suggest she and everyone else re-read carefully the list of things that Caroline says ARE possible, including but not limited to items ranging from Mike performing library miracles to "tin matchbox empty" not coming from the document that says "tin matchbox empty" to the Poste House not being the Poste House to the murderer forgetting what he did with the body parts to the handwriting looking nothing at all like the real James but still somehow inexplicably being his to the timing of these two "discoveries" just being a coincidence. And, of course, the greatest most stupendous "possibility " of them all -- that all of these, every single one without exception, happened simultaneously.
So if we're going to speak about "possibilities" and the difference between her opinion and "matters of fact" then let's be Sharp-like in our rigor, shall we?
Caroline's belief that there's no way the watch was scratched after Albert's purchase without Albert being a co-hoaxer is still just that. A belief. An opinion. And certainly not, in Sharpdom, a "matter of fact."
Right, Alan? 
--John
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 783
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Caz,
As tempted as I am to just accept what you say without any further evidence, I am afraid the bare little bits that you have provided don't fully satisfy. Who asked the questions? Is there a transcript? What was asked? Did they ask, "Hey did Albert do anything suspicious that made you think something was off?", which would be an exceedingly stupid question. Did they ask who had brought up the conversation of watches? Did they ask who had watched the show? Did they ask what night the show had been played on? And finally, how do we know that they weren't all in it together?
Cheers,
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
