|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:48 am: | 
|
Hi Philip
Welcome to the site. Of course you are correct when you say, "But I do have to ask myself, ... it is really very peripheral to the Ripper mystery, is it not?"
In the 117 years since the Ripper struck, there is much that is peripheral to the murderer's actual acts that has nonetheless become part of the case for better or worse. Some of these things have more or less or no relevance to the case.
Among the items of doubtful relevance to the case are the Maybrick artifacts but we also have other items that have been mentioned but not found such as Lionel Druitt's supposed "The East End Murderer -- I Knew Him" rumored to be in Australia, an alleged unfinished manuscript by Rasputin, Abberline's supposed diaries, and Dr. Thomas Dutton's "Chronicles of Crime."
You add those bits and pieces to the Royal Conspiracy theory that was developed in the 1970's, such theories as Richard Wallace's Carroll theory, Cornwell's Sickert allegations, and so on, and you can see that "the lore" of the case far overshadows whatever actual evidence there is of the crimes themselves. No wonder we are all so confused. 
As a side note, I am glad that you have been in contact with Stewart. I can see you are in good hands in terms of getting expert advice on the case.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by chrisg on January 12, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
Diary world,
don't you just love it.
i hate to be predictable so i won't say how far off topic we are!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I am using nothing as 'proof' that the watch scratches are old; I can claim nothing about the age of the scratches, since, as everyone agrees, the scientific findings have to be viewed as inconclusive.
And now John is desperately trying to interpret something Feldy wrote to suggest Albert is hiding something!
If Feldy was questioning me and still insisting I must be a Maybrick, after I had already told him he was barking up the wrong family tree, I suppose I might just say nothing and look gobsmacked this time, rather than try to argue with him, and I suppose he, being Feldy, would interpret this as 'she's no longer denying it, so it must be true'.
But don't let that put a damper on John's excitement at finally finding something in Feldy's writing in which to put his faith - and something in common with his own writing (eg no one is bothering to argue with John that the watch is not a hoax, therefore he concludes that everyone must know it is one).
The question: If the Watch scratches date from before 1980, what does this mean for the Diary?
is a good one and I'd love to hear some good answers.
Hi Philip,
Your relief may be shortlived, unless you are confident that you can believe everything you hear from just two or three posters. The question posed above gives us a clue. I can't even begin to talk in terms of 'Maybrick rubbish' until I know the watch was scratched in May 1993.
Stewart's 'expert advice', that 'the rusted particles were electron-microscopic and all it proves is that the scratches were made with an old pin' isn't exactly helpful, since we don't know how old the 'pin' was when it made them (so it doesn't even prove that), and it still tells us nothing about when they were actually made.
If it were really that simple, why did both Turgoose and Wild go the distance they did with their conclusions? They didn't have to.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 14, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Oh right, Philip (if you are still here.)
I forgot to tell you that Caroline would soon be here to suggest that we are all wrong and that hope is still alive.
Of course, she can't offer you a single piece of real evidence of any sort that even suggests that the real James Maybrick had anything to do with either of these items. That's because no such evidence exists.
And so, as I wrote to you before, "all you are going to get around here is speculation, conflicting interpretations, and expressions of personal desire without real evidence.
"Of course, no one -- including Caroline -- ever comes here to write that the real James Maybrick had anything to do with these things. So all we do is repetitiously argue in circles about when the hoaxes were made.
"But until the 'thorough investigation' Dr. Wild called for in his report is made possible, until the owners of these artefacts finally do the moral and responsible thing, what you see here will just be people wasting their time because they are bored. That's the bottom line."
And it's still true, even after Caroline's appearance to set you straight.
Enjoy your DiTA day,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
So, does Albert deny he's a Maybrick or not?
I read Caroline's post and can't quite tell if she actually knows the answer?
I think she is saying that Albert does NOT believe he is a Maybrick.
Of course, that doesn't explain the coy "maybe it will come to you" line that he allegedly said to Paul. And it doesn't tell us whether Paul, as I suspect, is just creating another of his completely unevidenced speculations when he says, "something far more important than money prevents Albert from telling everything he knows."
But it is certainly interesting how Paul, having met the man, comes to one conclusion and Caroline, having met the man, comes to another.
Perhaps we should remember that.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
Caz,
thats right everyone does agree the test reports are inconclusive.
sorry if i misinterpreted what you said!
Jenni
ps enjoy your Dita day John.
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
George Hutchinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 109
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
You know after family rows when mum and dad aren't talking round the dinner table and they communicate through their kids?
That's how I feel right now.
And like all dysfunctional families I am leaving home early!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
"The question: If the Watch scratches date from before 1980, what does this mean for the Diary?
is a good one and I'd love to hear some good answers. "
ASSUMING (and we know what assuming does to you and me, Caz) the Watch predates 1980 or so, and ASSUMING that it is still correct to ASSUME the inquest papers were sealed until the '80s....THEN I'd say it'd be reasonable to ASSUME we've got an oldish hoax on our hands, and somebody at some point wanted to besmirch James Maybrick.
Given what we know about his marital relationship, I can come up with a short list of suspects.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Paul H. Feldman, Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, Virgin Books, 1997, photographs opposite page 146, showing photographs of "Albert Johnson, owner of the Maybrick watch, ... Albert Johnson's grandmother [left] ... Sister Mary Joachim, born Ursula Maybrick ... [and] Margaret Minetta Maybrick, mother of the Whittlesey sisters [right]":
"Are the facial similarities of the owners of the watch (left) with the known Maybricks (right) really just coincidence?"
Of course, the close-up of the balding Albert Johnson craftily printed next to the photograph of the aged Sister Mary in her habit, hair hidden under her headpiece, look similar, photos of two aging English people, the "owners" of the Maybrick watch shown turns out to be one owner shown, and no matter that the Whittlesey Maybrick line was a distant branch removed from the Liverpool family of Maybricks that included James Maybrick. Come to think of it, Erich Von Daniken had something too when he insisted that the Mayans were descendents of spacemen. 
(Message edited by ChrisG on January 14, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
Please tell me Chris,
saying the Whittlesey Maybricks were directly related to the James Maybrick (i think this is what Paul feldman is getting at, though i don't know where the proof is) anyway saying they were does that make Albert johnson's grandmother Elizabeth CRAWLEY suddenly the illegitamte daughter of James MAYBRICK and Mrs John OVERS aka Emma PARKER.
where I live family history is based on a bit more than supersition frankly.
Don't let us get into this Chris there aren't enough hours in the day!
Jenni
ps yes just coincidence
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Remember, even if Paul is just being his usual self and making all this stuff about family links up, apparently Albert DID go to the "get together" Paul describes on page 249.
There we are told...
"I requested my guests to bring with them artefacts and any material they had associated with James Maybrick. I did not know if Albert would come, but he did and brought not only the watch but a photograph of his grandmother Elizabeth Crawley."
Why? (This is me again, asking.)
Did Paul specifically ask him to bring the photo or was this Albert's idea? If the latter, does that tell us about what Albert thought? Perhaps not.
In any case, my point in discussing all of this is simply to demonstrate that two people met this guy, spent some time with him, and came to completely different conclusions concerning whether he was being honest about the watch.
I don't know which one was right or if either of them were, but at least we can see that questions clearly remain and Albert's behavior remains open to conflicting interpretations.
Thanks,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 15, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
I guess you have to ask Feldy or Albert johnson that John!
Cheers
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
Hi John,
A wee bit desperate isn't it? All of a sudden you are trying to make mud of some sort stick to Albert, because Feldy was just being his usual self and trying for dear life to make another of his daft Maybrick theories stick to Albert this time - by hook or by crook.
I can't be sure, but I think Feldy was probably the only person in the whole world who believed what he believed about Albert and his family tree, and in consequence convinced himself that Albert must have been hiding 'the truth' from him - until you came along, that is, and wanted to believe there must have been something more than wishful thinking behind Feldy's unique interpretation of Albert's words and behaviour.
Find just one other person who has spent time with Albert, and who thinks as Feldy did, and show me that your sudden faith in his abilities to suss people out isn't utterly phoney.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
So then, no answer to the simple question of why Albert brought the photo of Elizabeth to the "get together" with Paul?
No answer to the question of why he allegedly hinted to Paul about knowing something more than he was saying with his "maybe it will come to you?"
Just a "trust me" sort of reassurance that Caroline's take on Albert is the completely correct one and that's that.
Fascinating.
By the way, what DO Albert and his partners all do for a living (or rather, perhaps, what DID they do)?
Just asking questions, as they say,
--John
PS: You're wrong about one thing, Caroline. I don't believe any of Paul's theories for a moment. That's not the point here. But surely you know that.
PPS: It's possible that NO ONE has Albert properly "sussed out," isn't it?
(Message edited by omlor on January 17, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1654
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
Hang on,
(i know posting on here is bad for me but anyway!!)
I would assume he took the photo because he was asked by someone hell bent on proving that he was related to james Maybrick via the most bizzare means, is that not the case?
thats the assumption i would make. But hey why not just ASK Albert Johnson, he'd know! Or ask Paul Feldman, he'd know also!
Or is that a crazy idea??
lets be fair how on earth is caz supposed to know why Albert johnson took the photo or what he meant she's not a bloody mind reader now is she?
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Exactly. I have no idea whether Paul asked Albert to bring that photo or not. Paul's own prose says that he did not even know if Albert would come and says nothing about mentioning any old photo to Albert. But Paul's prose is almost always misleading, so that tells us nothing.
That's why I asked.
Caroline, I believe, is the only one here who knows and speaks to Albert. Although I did not direct the question specifically to her (I'd always be happy for anyone answer it, of course), I assume that's why she chose to respond.
I repeat, the point here is simply that it seems very possible that NO ONE has Albert exactly figured out.
And that's something we should all remember.
Thanks, Jenni,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Hi John,
Just a "trust me" sort of reassurance that Caroline's take on Albert is the completely correct one and that's that.
Fascinating.
Yes, it's fascinating where you got this from. What is my 'take' on Albert? I was simply saying that you couldn't possibly be serious, if you thought anything Feldy has speculated, or suspected, or written about Albert could tell anyone anything remotely useful about the man himself, and what he knows and doesn't know.
And now you are admitting that your questions weren't serious because:
I don't believe any of Paul's theories for a moment.
And:
But Paul's prose is almost always misleading, so that tells us nothing.
That's why I asked.
Sorry, what do you mean - that's why you asked?
I answered, and told you what you knew already, and what everyone else knows too - that Feldy's prose is so misleading that it can tell us 'nothing'.
Nuff said, don't you think?
I don't know what you mean by 'Albert and all his partners'. The solicitor he engaged to advise him on the watch is still practising as far as I know. Albert was working as a caretaker in a technical college when the scratches were discovered. I believe he is now retired, and helps with his grand-daughter's daily school run. His wife, as far as I know, works part-time at a local primary school.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
Gee, I thought my post to Jenni was pretty clear.
Paul says Albert brought a photo of Elizabeth when he showed up at Paul's little get-together.
Paul is not clear as to whether Albert did this on his own or at Paul's request.
Since there was no way to tell this from Paul's text, I asked here. Why did Albert (who Caroline assures us did not think he was a Maybrick) bring a photo of Elizabeth for Paul to see? Did he do that on his own, without prompting?
That was my question.
Here's another -- exactly what sort of "technical college" did Albert work at?
And here is a last one, given our conversation and the conflicting interpretations -- isn't it at least possible that NO ONE has Albert quite figured out?
If that's NOT possible, then why is it not possible?
Still just asking questions,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Either Albert stopped being a caretaker a long time ago (worked in kent) or you mean a different type of college (A City technology College?) or i missed something
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
In the interview with Shirley Harrison, January 3, 1997, here on the Casebook, in which she answered questions sent to her by Stephen Ryder--
Ryder: What is your opinion of the Maybrick watch? Has any new information been found either supporting or refuting its authenticity?
Harrison: I can find no reason to doubt the authenticity of the watch following the positive forensic test results conducted by the top metallurgists at the University of Manchester Department of Science and Technology (UMIST) and Bristol University. Again, more will, doubtless, be revealed in Paul Feldman's book about his research linking the Maybrick family with Albert Johnson.
[Emphasis added]
The expectation on the part of Mrs. Harrison therefore seems to have been that Feldy was going to reveal a link between the watch, the Maybricks, and Albert Johnson. Could it have been therefore that the same expectancy was engendered in Albert, which is why he brought the photograph of grannie along? That is not so much that Albert knew of a connection between his family and the Maybricks (although Feldy may have hoped there would be one) but that Feldy was leading Albert to believe he was on the track of such a connection.
That might readily explain what John Omlor has pointed out was "the coy 'maybe it will come to you' line that he [Albert] allegedly said to Paul."
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Could be, Chris. Could very well be.
I wonder, "engendered" when and how exactly?
Thanks,
--John (making notes on what we know and what we don't know)
(Message edited by omlor on January 18, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 4:38 am: |
|
I know I know!!!
Sorry,
anyway,
why not ask Albert Johnson or Paul Feldman. surely someone among our number must have an email address for Feldy?
Jenni
"So what you think about that now you know how I feel?"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Jenni,
I'm afraid writing to Feldman wouldn't solve anything, no matter what he he said.
After all, he's Paul Feldman.
It might be interesting to see what Albert says about it, though.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Good,
then for gawds sake will someone who knows how to contact him not just ask him.
let's ask feldy too!
let's ask everyone!!
Jenni
"So what you think about that now you know how I feel?"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1416
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Sorry, I'm at a complete loss with this:
Either Albert stopped being a caretaker a long time ago (worked in kent) or you mean a different type of college (A City technology College?) or i missed something
Where did Kent come from? As far as I know, Albert has always lived and worked on Merseyside.
Hi John,
Just an ordinary common or garden tech, I assumed, but I could be wrong.
This Feldy thing is an absolute hoot. By the time he had finished telling Mike Barrett that he wasn't really Mike Barrett, and that all the family's identities had been changed by the Government, he had reduced the world's greatest forger to a mumbling wreck who didn't know what the hell was going on. At one point Mike was left whimpering, "Who the bloody hell am I then?"
I suspect Albert suffered similarly, and I imagine most people on being Feldified would give up the uneven struggle eventually and let him think whatever he was determined to think, finding it a whole lot less stressful than trying to argue the toss with him.
Anyway, assuming your current 'no excuses' campaign extends to yourself, email me and I will gladly supply you with Albert's address. Then you can put all your questions to the one person in a position to give you answers you can work with.
At the same time, I suggest you ask Albert if he has any objections to submitting his watch for further testing, along the lines recommended by Dr. Wild, if any third party is able and willing to help find and fund the appropriate professionals.
How were you expecting Albert to know about and respond to your repeated calls for more tests, or to heed your 'no excuses will be accepted' line? Carrier pigeon? Telepathy, perhaps?
Since you couldn't even be bothered to take this elemental - nay, essential first step in your own 'let's test the watch and no excuses' campaign, you won't be expecting anyone else to contact Albert for you, will you?
No pitiful excuses, now.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 19, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Caz,
john was questioning what you meant by a technical college.
so far as i know they went out with comprhensivisation c.1970 except in places like kent they still have some. but anyway i assume you mean something else a city technology college etc. i wasnt having a go i was just trying to clarfy for john our american friend!
Jenni
"So what you think about that now you know how I feel?"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
So I wonder what sort of facilities would the college Albert worked at have, then?
And I still can't find anything in Caroline's post about whether Albert brought the picture to the get-together on his own accord or not. I'll just assume she doesn't know (though why she can't just say that still remains a mystery).
I'd be happy to write to Albert, by the way. But when Caroline asks me, "How were you expecting Albert to know about and respond to your repeated calls for more tests, or to heed your 'no excuses will be accepted' line," she is being especially disingenuous.
She was the one who came here and gave us the watch reports announcing that she had personally received Albert's permission. And she was the one who sent more than a few posts talking about what Albert told her when they talked, etc. So of course, I assumed at least one person reading these boards knew Albert.
Perhaps I was wrong.
But I don't think so.
Anyway, send away Caroline. You know the e-mail address.
Always happy to write to anyone, but of course not expecting much,
--John
PS: Just to be clear, as in the case with Robert, the owners of this watch are the ones who have the responsibility for setting up the tests on any item they claim might be authentic. If they feel a third party is needed for some reason, then it is their responsibility to find one and make the necessary arrangements. This whole "someone else should do the work" nonsense is just childish and sad.
And, for god's sake, it's been TEN YEARS now since Dr. Wild wrote that a full investigation was impossible given his limited access to the material and his findings were only preliminary. TEN YEARS and nothing. Nothing with the diary. Nothing with the watch. Think about that. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 6:05 am: |
|
You can tell it all to Albert, John, when you're asking him about the technical college and the photo and his shoe size or whatever else you consider so important to know before you can ascertain what makes him and his watch tick.
I don't think there's one person reading these boards who thinks Albert should pay for these new tests himself, and no one who is willing to help fund them. So think about that one.
If I don't get a private request from you for Albert's address, I shall assume you don't consider any of your questions for him - including whether he would submit the watch for further tests if fund raisers could be found - really worth asking, despite all this curfuffle about responsibility etc.
No excuses you said. So lift a finger of your own for once in your life - if you believe in what you write day in day out.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Caroline,
Consider this the private request. Just between us. Feel free to send the address to me via the private message service here on the Casebook if that's easier. Or you can just e-mail it to me. My address is omlor@tampabay.rr.com.
I'd be delighted to write to Albert and ask what prompted him to bring a picture of Elizabeth to show to Paul and what sort of facilities they had at the school where he worked and why he hasn't had any new tests done for over a decade when the ones he had done told him clearly that they were incomplete, preliminary and speculative. Oh, and of course I have no problem asking him if he would be willing to finally have this watch thoroughly and properly tested, giving the professionals in a laboratory setting full and complete access to the material.
I look forward to writing such a letter and receiving an answer.
Thanks,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
Hi John,
If you find sending a one-line private request to me too taxing, I'll make it even easier for you. You'll need to keep your strength up for writing that letter. So you'd be a fool to waste your time and energy writing another word on the subject until you have made Albert fully aware of all you are asking of him.
I don't actually care whether you write or not, but either way it'll give us all a well-earned break from your pointless repetition on these threads of stuff only Albert can help you with.
Simply cut and paste the following and send it to me:
Yes, please rush me Albert's address.
Just do it.
No more excuses. (Blimey, I could be your father speaking.  )
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1061
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 6:51 am: |
|
All right, now what is this game about?
I've already said I'd happily write Albert and I've already provided Caroline with my private e-mail address.
You've all seen it, right?
So why does she refuse to send me the address unless I do the same thing all over again in an e-mail to her?
This is very odd.
Anyway, I'm not up for arguing with her random childishness about this today, so I've just sent a two-word e-mail off to her saying, "Send it."
Of course, that's precisely what I've already said here twice now, so I can't for the life of me figure out what possible difference it makes that I've now sent her the same thing a third time. Unless this is just some silly power or control game she is playing over a trivial stupidity.
No, that's not possible.
Is it?
Bemused and confused, but happy to oblige anyway,
--John
PS: Here's a thought. If Albert had just put a ten pound note away each week, in a drawer perhaps, where it would be "safe," he'd now have over five thousand pounds clear to put towards the sort of thorough and proper testing of his suspicious artefact that Dr. Wild explicitly called for.
Ten years is an awful long time to do nothing with something you think is an important piece of history, isn't it?
(Message edited by omlor on January 21, 2005) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 785
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Well John I am happy to say that I had come here to respond to Caroline's hoop jumping post (I too was baffled by her insistence that you write to her directly after you had already requested it here for all to see). To be frank, I had thought you would be equally childish and say "No, I asked you, just send it" and then it would go on forever in stupid games.
Glad to see you rose above the two-year old in you.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 786
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
And then he added the post script...
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1690
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
you dislike the post script?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 787
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
I think it's a waste of time. Obviously, if Albs had any intention of "doing something with the watch" he would have done it by now.
Scenario A: Albert thinks it's real. Albert hasn't gotten it tested in ten years. Why? Possibly because Albert thinks it's real and doesn't give a rat's ass what Jennifer Pegg or John Omlor thinks about the watch. He is happy and content to own his significant piece of history, happily tucked away in his drawer. So he is hardly likely to spend thousands of his dollars to have something proved true when he will never regain the money for it one way or the other.
Scenario B: Albert knows it's forged. Now, Albert is hardly likely to spend a whole wad of money on the thing to prove it was forged. And yes, we know that there was a whole little convo back and forth about selling it and Alby holding out because he wanted more money but here's the end thing..he didn't sell it in the end, did he? The watch is still safely in his possession, safe from all tests that would prove it to be a fake and he can't be taken off to jail for profitting from a fraud. All is well in whoville.
As to why would Albert have forged it in the first place if he never intended to profit from it...well here's something. I know a whole group of more or less honorable men. They don't cheat on their taxes, they are honest as the day is long and they would love to get a chance to play a practical joke on the world of no real significance or consequence. Maybe that's what Albert and his cronies have done.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1062
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
Actually the postscript got me thinking about this even more.
If Robert and Albert are convinced they might actually own the signed confessions of history's most notorious serial killer, how come these things aren't on display somewhere? How come they haven't put them in a museum of history or a crime museum or some other historical repository where they can properly become part of the official archive?
Surely Jack the Ripper's diary and Jack the Ripper's watch should be under glass, shouldn't they?
Or perhaps not,
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 789
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:20 am: |
|
The same could hold true for every person who owns a picasso or monet or original book of whomever. Why aren't all these on display somewhere? Surely each is as unique as the diary? And where would you suggest that they be on display? Is there a Jack the Ripper Museum where these things would be of interest to the general public?
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
Well, we're actually talking about historical artefacts here and not works of art or literature, so it's a little different. And I would think any number of history and crime museums around the world would be delighted to display the signed confessions of the real Jack the Ripper. In fact, you'd think there would be quite the bidding war just for the rights to the exhibition, wouldn't you?
I was just reading how the gun that Princip used to kill Archduke Ferdinand was discovered and placed on display in a museum, as was the second bullet from that event. And that got me thinking...
But maybe there are other considerations,
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 790
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
I think you seriously overestimate the general importance or interest of the Jack the Ripper saga.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Yeah I have to agree with Ally on that one.
and anyway its not like there is any natural home for it even then.
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1064
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Well, perhaps you are both right. I might well be overestimating the case's importance in the scope of history.
I don't know.
I know there are a number of crime museums around the world. And I know there is a certain public fascination about serial killers that seems to allow for movies and television shows and books and historical exhibitions and historical sites and all the rest. And I know museum historians love finding artefacts that change our knowledge of the past and that solve mysteries.
But I suppose it is possible that the signed confessions of the real Jack the Ripper would not be able to find a place of exhibition, that no curator would consider putting them on display.
Of course, as professionals, they might have other reasons for such a decision.
Just killing time,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
I doubt many museums would be interested in either the diary or the watch if they can't be proven authentic.
And they can't, can they? Even if scientists claimed new tests had conclusively proved they were created around the right time.
Love,
Caz
X
PS I'll respond to John privately on Monday. If his letter to Albert is already written and ready to go, I apologise for the slight delay this will cause him.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
I was wondering why my mailbox was empty this morning.
It must be a long address.
Licking the stamp,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Caz,
you contradict yourself.
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1435
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 9:23 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Sorry, in what way do I contradict myself?
Hi All,
Ally actually took my own arguments and improved on them when she wrote:
Scenario A: Albert thinks it's real. Albert hasn't gotten it tested in ten years. Why? Possibly because Albert thinks it's real and doesn't give a rat's ass what Jennifer Pegg or John Omlor thinks about the watch. He is happy and content to own his significant piece of history, happily tucked away in his drawer. So he is hardly likely to spend thousands of his dollars to have something proved true when he will never regain the money for it one way or the other.
And if this is the case, Albert simply doesn't believe that anyone could have done, since July 1992, what Dr.Turgoose suggested a hoaxer would have to have done if the scratches had been made in recent years (whether Turgoose was right about this or not).
Therefore it would also stand to reason that Albert believes the 'decades old or more' conclusions to be right, because it makes no sense that a modern hoaxer would have gone to all that trouble before July 1992, only to sit back and wait for someone to buy the watch and discover his handiwork.
Scenario B: Albert knows it's forged. Now, Albert is hardly likely to spend a whole wad of money on the thing to prove it was forged. And yes, we know that there was a whole little convo back and forth about selling it and Alby holding out because he wanted more money but here's the end thing..he didn't sell it in the end, did he? The watch is still safely in his possession, safe from all tests that would prove it to be a fake and he can't be taken off to jail for profitting from a fraud. All is well in whoville.
A small problem here is that Albert did exactly that: he did spend a whole wad of money on the thing (unless anyone thinks that £1,400+ for buying the watch and commissioning the tests was chicken feed to Albert in the early 1990s, in which case they'd better ask his wife to confirm this), and submitted it to be examined by two specialists chosen by others, presumably as much in hope as in expectation that nothing untoward could be detected without spending a far greater wad of money.
As to why would Albert have forged it in the first place if he never intended to profit from it...well here's something. I know a whole group of more or less honorable men. They don't cheat on their taxes, they are honest as the day is long and they would love to get a chance to play a practical joke on the world of no real significance or consequence. Maybe that's what Albert and his cronies have done.
Maybe, but there have been very real consequences, beginning with Albert's initial outlay of over £1,400, to kick-start this practical joke on the world, deceiving his wife and solicitor along the way (unless they are both 'cronies'); and soon finding that the world is made up of people who, unlike his wife and solicitor, would convince themselves that Albert is nothing but a con artist - people like the late Stanley Dangar, for instance, who added to Albert's grief at losing his brother by suggesting he had been murdered because of a hoax (or practical joke on the world) orchestrated by Paul Feldman!
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
Well, we do know at least one thing for sure.
We know that Albert was told by Dr Wild that:
"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
"...it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work."
And that he was told by Dr. Turgoose that,
"The actual age would depend on the cleaning or polishing regime employed, and any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation."
So we know that both reports were speculative and preliminary at best and that a "thorough investigation" of these items had (and has) not yet been carried out.
And we also know that ten years later, nothing has changed.
I suppose it's possible that we'll come to know a bit more about how Albert actually feels about some of these things once I write to him and ask.
Here's hoping,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
'And they can't, can they? Even if scientists claimed new tests had conclusively proved they were created around the right time'
sorry i thought this was the exact opposite of what you usually say!
i dont mean to misrepresent you
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 791
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
"A small problem here is that Albert did exactly that: he did spend a whole wad of money on the thing (unless anyone thinks that £1,400+ for buying the watch and commissioning the tests was chicken feed to Albert in the early 1990s, in which case they'd better ask his wife to confirm this), "
If we are going with the scenario that he actually forged the watch:
The initial outlay for the pocketwatch doesn't really factor in, since he had already purchased the watch before the idea for a forgery was conceived. I sincerely doubt they spent close to a year forging it before deciding to go public with it. He had it already and thought to use it when coming up with the idea of a forgery. He also recouped the money spent on testing it so it can hardly be stated that he has spent anything out of pocket at this time on the watch.
(Message edited by Ally on January 23, 2005)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Hi John,
"...it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work."
Perhaps Albert assumed, like I did (and perhaps we are both wrong), that Dr. Wild meant more accurate in the context of his at least several tens of years old conclusion:
ie that considerably more work might make it possible to narrow his at least several tens of years old down to a more specific number of years old; not that more tests could prove his preliminary conclusion totally inaccurate by finding the scratches were less than one year old when examined.
"The actual age would depend on the cleaning or polishing regime employed, and any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation."
Equally, Albert could have taken Dr. Turgoose's words to mean that his definition, ie more than tens of years, and possibly much longer, had to remain speculative - but that any given definition would still be in terms of a number of years, ie not a number of weeks or months.
Hi Jenni,
Nope, I can't say I have ever claimed there is any way to prove artefacts like this authentic. The scientists certainly couldn't do that, even if they could convince everyone that the artefacts are not modern.
Hi Ally,
He also recouped the money spent on testing.
What is your evidence for this? Hearsay, perhaps?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:19 am: |
|
Caz,
so you agree with the idea you can't prove something true you can only prove it false?
not sure why i once had to learn that!
anyway
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
