|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1673
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 5:07 pm: | 
|
Caz,
as briefly as is possible:-
#1 We all have to be careful what we imply because it posses moral issues. i wasn't singling you out and i include myself in that.
#2 clearly if someone nicked the watch and scratched it putting it back without Albert knowing, he wouldn't know. again, i am not saying this is at all likely. only theoretically possible in the most abstract sense. In fact i think agree with the jist of what you mean on that!
#3 I am not claiming the watch was scratched in 1993 as a result of emerging diary publicity. Having read the watch reports I am quite happy to say. i don't know when i think the watch was scratched, but i still think it most likely that it was hoaxed in the last few decades. I have no evidence or reasoning for this at all. I am totally convincable that i am wrong.
#4 no, the clear implication comes, no one could have tampered with it, where was it? i thought in a draw, forgotten, not in a safe guarded by hungry dogs and a bear?
#5 in my experience John often misses the point. (he probably thinks I'm joking, Hi John, not sure if i'm joking or not and not for the first time.)
#6 i am merely suggesting that John's opinion is no more valid than yours or anyone elses and that people are no more or less likely to listen to him than anyone else. i am merely implying that you are being far too modest and doing your own influence and the positive way many people feel about you and your expertise on this matter a great diservice if you think John's opinion will be privledged over your own or anyone elses. i am merely saying i hope this is not the case. Caz, it's not me having a go quite the opposite.
#7 ok - as long as we understand each other. for the record i think you say a lot that makes sense on these boards. that doesn't mean i agree with it all but that's not the point.
#8 I don't know what other people mean. but there is nothing wrong with being a diary supporter if you genuinely believe it is true. not that i am saying you are one. not that, that would be a problem!i don't know what you think. nor does it matter to me in relation to your arguments.
#9 shall i get my bell. is it worth mentioning that i think the poste house could mean not the Poste House or that i think the miracle in liverpool library is less than miracolous. what's our obession with labels around here. i don't just mean Caz, i mean all of us. it's like you can't form an opinion based on evidence (isn't this what you are always going on about John?). personally i don't like to let my views on one thing cloud my opinions on others and i don't mind changing them. I am prepared to be wrong about the watch and about other things.
#10 they always have (or did I miss something Chris? email me and let me know if i misrepresent your views)
And finally,
#11 i am sorry about our misunderstanding about what i meant in my email to you. i was not saying that whenever i agree with John it is because it is easier to agree sometimes. i was merely being light hearted and saying sometimes it's easier to agree that is esp. noticable when i agree and you do not don't you think?
for the record in saying
i wasnt agreeing with everything John said
'Sometimes its easier to agree with John but that is beside the point.
I should never agree with him ever again!'
i was refering to the specific incident when i said i agreed with John meaning one post and you took this to mean i agreed with every single thing that john said. which clearly isn't the case. i thought i had explained this and you understood. Do you now?
In the spirit of honesty and cooperation i hope that is everything that needs saying right now saying. And if you think i have misrepresented what i wrote to you in that specific email let me know. it's not intentional -
Cheers
Jenni
ps sorry John!
"So what you think about that now you know how I feel?"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Jenni - a terrific post, IMHO. Too many times in cyber it's the case that a message can be taken in an offensive way when that's not at all the intention of the poster.
BTW - just got the latest Ripperologist containing your piece on the Diary. Excellent work.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Sorry for what?
What you have said above all makes perfect sense to me.
And I'm certainly glad that you don't agree "with every single thing" I say.
That would be boring and there would no reason for us ever to respond to one another.
You speak of evidence. There's a pile of it in the diary text and it all points over and over again to the same thing -- hoax.
The handwriting points clearly to it not being written by the real James.
The line from the police report points to it not being either by the real James or the real murderer, and suggests a modern creation.
The precise, proper naming complete with upper case and unique spelling point to the Poste House likely being the Poste House (duh), and to a modern creation.
The mistaken details about the murders points to it not being the work of the real murderer.
The "coincidental" timing of both objects appearances point to them both being hoaxes.
The complete lack of any provenance for either object points to their both being hoaxes.
Nothing, anywhere, that anyone has ever found, has EVER pointed in any real way to the real James having anything at all to do with either object or has ever established that either of these objects even existed in the proper century.
That's the state of the evidence we do have (with similar items left out of the list -- I didn't even mention the same obscure line of poetry excerpted in two books both owned by the same guy one of which was the diary or phrases in a modern source on the Maybricks repeated in the diary).
All those are the things that we have before us.
And together they allow for a simple valid logical inductive conclusion.
The real James Maybrick did not scratch this watch or write this diary. They are both hoaxes. And, given the diary text, most likely 20th century hoaxes at that.
The truly scientific findings on the watch are self-admittedly "speculation" in one case and only preliminary and incomplete in the other.
Neither the diary nor the watch has been properly, thoroughly tested by qualified professionals who are given complete access to them for a full investigation using the latest technologies. And it's been years and years and years.
Agree with all of this or disagree with it. Either way is fine. Caroline's nonsense about sheep and cliffs and all the rest is rhetorical jetsum, and it changes none of this.
Anyone is free as always to interpret all these items in any way the please, they can determine for themselves what is likely to be true and what is not.
But the list of highly highly unlikely textual and event-based coincidences that would all have to have taken places simultaneously for these things to be anything other than hoaxes is long and formidable.
And no one has EVER been able to come with an even remotely believable scenario wherein all this is accounted for and the real James wrote this book or scratched this watch.
No one.
Ever.
All we do here is play games. There is no new evidence of any sort. There will be no new evidence and no new tests and no new results of any sort. You don't need to be clairvoyant to know that. History, especially history of individual behavior is often the best predictor of the future.
So let the circular discussion and silly power games continue -- let people call each other sheep and dogs and whatever other silliness they like and let us all chatter on endlessly about what we know and don't know.
The evidence remains.
And the real James Maybrick did not kill these women, nor did he write this diary or scratch this watch.
I'll state that clearly and directly and dare anyone to even begin to prove me wrong. And I'll be proud to do so.
I don't know about others.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 19, 2005)
(Message edited by omlor on January 19, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
"All we do here is play games."
I'd prefer a discussion.
"There is no new evidence of any sort. "
John, that statement holds true for almost every thread on the Casebook. Day in, day out, we pour over the same old, same old. Personally, I enjoy escaping to 1888 for a few minutes a day. It's a hobby.
But you take the vitriol here up to levels not seen on the other threads, and that's a shame.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 227
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Caz, John, Jenni...
PLEASE come back to the other boards! This Diary board has become tedious and boring! It's so repetative! I know that you all have things that you each want to prove (or be proven), but so what! So, Albert has a watch with dubious scratches on it. So, we don't really know who forged that dratted Diary! Come back to the other boards, people! We miss you there!
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
If you think I'm alone in vitriol (or even in my own league), you haven't been reading here very long. Shall we talk about lawyers? But perhaps you meant all of us.
Lindsey,
Thanks for the kind request. Of course, you needn't read this board. And I wouldn't blame you a bit if you didn't as I agree with your critical assessment of it.
All the best,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:27 pm: |
|
I've been reading the Casebook for years, but thanks for the suggestion.
Actually, John, it wouldn't hurt for you to look at your older vintage postings versus the 2004/2005 Omlor. You are capable of better.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Terrific post! You go girl.
Hi Ally,
You wrote:
And finally, how do we know that they weren't all in it together?
I agree, and this suggests that it would be rather a waste of time my searching through piles and piles of documentation, and possibly making further enquiries, to flesh out my 'bare little bits' for you, because if they were 'all in it together', none of the information you ask for will prove otherwise. They simply had to agree to make the Antiques Roadshow programme (presumably doing them all a great favour by going to air within days of the scratches being made) their catalyst for the whole 'discovery' scam. Perhaps the BBC website could help you ascertain whether or not an episode of the programme was shown between late April and late May 1993, containing an item on an antique gold watch.
Hi John,
So your argument is that Albert could have been simply and naively mistaken when he says no one would have had a chance to scratch the watch and that someone could have done so without his knowing it.
You are entitled to believe this, but don't you have to support it with evidence somehow, if you want to maintain your insistence that you are not accusing Albert of any wrongdoing here?
Who found out, without Albert telling them, that he had bought a watch made before 1888?
Who found out, without Albert telling them, where this watch was being kept?
Who went to Albert's drawer, took the watch, made the scratches and replaced it, all without Albert knowing?
And who trusted to luck that within just a few days of making the scratches, a programme would air, and a discussion about it would follow at Albert's workplace, that would prompt him to take the watch out of the drawer for the first time since he bought it ten months previously, open the back in front of witnesses, and see for the first time the scratches that are only visible to the naked eye when the light catches them?
Now tell me how you can claim the timing of the discovery was too suspicious to be coincidental, while claiming that you are not accusing Albert of being anything other than 'simply and naively mistaken'?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 784
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
I am looking for an episode guide for antiques roadshow, but as yet have not found one. If you could trouble yourself to answer my questions, I would appreciate it. The questions were:
Who interviewed the colleagues. What questions were asked? Is there a transcript available?
You say they were all questioned and they all stuck to the story and did not implicate Albert so therefore, you must have some idea of when and how these interviews took place.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
Caroline asks me,
So your argument is that Albert could have been simply and naively mistaken when he says no one would have had a chance to scratch the watch and that someone could have done so without his knowing it.
You are entitled to believe this, but don't you have to support it with evidence somehow, if you want to maintain your insistence that you are not accusing Albert of any wrongdoing here?
Actually, no. Not according to your logic of "at least it's possible if I can imagine it happening and no one has proven it couldn't have happened" which has consistently been your response concerning any number of problems with the diary text and concerning the "possibility" of the real James writing the diary.
In fact, all I have to do when you ask me who might have known about the watch and scratched it behind Albert's back is do my impression of you and say,
I don't know. We don't have any way of knowing for sure, so I can't say.
Therefore any assertion that it didn't happen cannot be considered, logically, a "matter of fact," it can only be considered a belief or opinion at this point. And the same is true about my suggestion that it could have.
Of course, it's also possible, as you suggest all the time, that Albert DID know and is lying and was a co-hoaxer. That's possible as well.
The evidence does not yet exist that objectively indicts him or dismisses him as a suspect, just like Mike.
And I suspect it will never arrive.
Sir Robert,
Two things --
1. Thanks for the line about my old posts, but whether you think I am "capable of better" (whatever that might mean) isn't really relevant to the issues in question. I'm quite happy with the words I post here each day. It keeps me off the streets and I have not written anything I don't think is fair.
2. The difference between this World and the rest of the Casebook is that here many of the people in question are still alive and the artefacts in question still exist and have yet to be examined and investigated thoroughly. That's not the case with the other Ripper stuff. Here the people who brought these hoaxes to the public are still among us. And here the evidence still sits, sadly a decade after its arrival, awaiting full and complete analysis by professionals who should have complete access to it.
That's why the discussion is different here.
All the best,
--John |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
Just another little entry to make people laugh or cry or do whatever.
I do believe,being as Albert paid good money for the tests,that he should have gotten good value in the reports.He didn't.He should go back and ask that certain points be clarified.
Untill that is done,and done without a further penny being outlayed,(he is owed that),I believe further tests would have no value.
Posters have argued about the tens of years,and what it amounts to.It means little when taken in context with what else was said,and what was said was this.'Provided the watch remained in a normal enviroment'.
Now the history of the watch has a hundred or so blank years,when nothing is known of its whereabouts,so the last proviso above can never be answered.
So what is a normal enviroment,and why did not the tester explain.Albert should have been told.
The opposite to normal is abnormal.What abnormal conditions could effect the dating of the watch scratches.The tester again did not elaborate.
Could these abnormal conditions be created in a short period of time,so as to give a false value to the age of the scratches.The reports do not say,they only hint.
Before anyone states that other parts of the watch would also show signs of abnormal conditioning,should the ageing have been faked,bear this in mind.The back cover was hinged,so could have bee detached,and treated alone. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 4:05 am: |
|
I do not believe that anyone has ever accused Albert himself of having scratched the initials on the cover of the watch.John Omlor hasn't,neither have I.
Albert has never said very much himself.He was in company when the initials were claimed to have been noticed for the first time.There was certainly time enough between then and the time the watch was purchased,for initials to have been so inscribed.
The claim he/she was too honest,too unskilled,didn't have enough time,wasn't out of his or her sight,have been used often,and as often disproved.
Gold has the property,almost alone compared to other metals and alloys,of retaining markings ,in the original condition, almost indefinately.It is therefor,even for an expert,difficult to determine if a mark on that metal,is of recent or long standing.
It appears that only the inclusion of a foreign particle,suggests the possibility that the scratch marks might have been made many years ago.
I will try to get registered,so that my posts are not delayed. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1425
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
If you could trouble yourself...
The way it works around here is that people first claim the watch is a modern hoax without any evidence. Then someone comes along with some information that could undermine this claim and they are expected to 'trouble themselves' and do even more.
I realise that not all posters on the diary threads adhere to the old-fashioned rule that the one suspecting foul play has to do all the work and find the evidence for their suspicions if they want to be taken seriously.
So being a fairly tolerant laid back sort of person, I'll try to help out once more, but then you're on your own with your suspicions until you bring the evidence for them with you.
Who interviewed the colleagues? I'm not certain, but from memory I think at least two researchers have questioned one or more of them over the years, including Shirley Harrison and possibly Martin Howells. I don't include Feldy because I'm not sure if he has ever spoken to them.
Since I wasn't involved personally in these interviews, you will have to contact those who were if you want to learn exactly what was asked and whether any transcripts exist that they could make available to you.
Hi John,
I don't know whether to be flattered or surprised, that all you think you have to do - when I ask you for evidence that a potential hoaxer knew about the watch and scratched it behind Albert's back (and then presumably hypnotised him into taking it to work just a few days later and finding the scratches, if you want your claim that the timing was suspicious to stand up) - is your 'impression' of me!
Nice to know you think my writing is so convincing that you want to bottle it and try it out for yourself.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 788
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
So basically what you are now saying is that despite previously claiming what Albert did and did not say in those interviews, you are now saying you have no idea what he said in those interviews and therefore your judgments that he has been remarkably consistent in his tale throughout is a great big ole load of ...what? Hearsay? Make Believe? Out and out invention?
Now the way it works is that if you make a claim about what Albert said, then you ought to actually know the details of what he said and to whom he said it. You were the one claiming knowledge of these interviews. I can hardly follow up if I don't even know who the interviewers are, now can I dear? But now it seems you really don't know anything after all. For shame. And here I thought you had written an entire book on the subject. If I had written an entire book on the subject, you can be sure that I would have found as much as possible about all aspects. IF I were interested in presenting a fair and balanced view that is.
Ta,
(Message edited by Ally on January 21, 2005)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1427
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
I do applaud your efforts to obtain some concrete evidence for your suspicions of foul play here. But if you are serious about obtaining it you will obviously* have to take this up with Shirley Harrison, and ask her for details of the interviews, and work out for yourself if she could have made up the whole 'discovery' story.
I have heard the same story from Albert's own lips, but that means nothing if you believe he is involved in a hoax, and has been lying to me as well as to Shirley.
Anyway, I wouldn't want to try and convince you of anything either way. I simply gave everyone here the story as it has been claimed by others. I didn't ask you, or anyone else, to accept or reject it. Neither was I claiming any of it to be true.
Good luck with confirming your suspicions. If you succeed, perhaps you could let the board know?
*I say 'obviously' because it's Shirley's research, and I wouldn't start quoting chapter and verse without her permission anyway. If you want more information than I can give you, you will have to put yourself out a bit.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 22, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 4:45 am: |
|
Hi John,
I've noticed you still haven't addressed what would make the timing of the discovery 'suspicious' if Albert wasn't knowingly involved in a set-up job.
It's all very well trying to do Caz impressions (although I'm not sure what that does for your credibility - I'm happy to leave others to figure out whether it sends it sky high or drops it through the floor  ), but you'll need more work on this one.
How could your bandwagon hoaxer, if not Albert, have set up the discovery without Albert being any the wiser?
If there is simply no way he could have done, outside the realms of the supernatural, then your whole case relies on Albert being involved.
Tell me there is a way, and make it believable, and then you can claim that you are not accusing Albert.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1070
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Caroline asks for more scenario creation,
"Tell me there is a way, and make it believable, and then you can claim that you are not accusing Albert."
But fortunately for me, that's not how it works around here.
All I have to do is claim "it's possible" that someone got access to the watch without Albert knowing about it and scratched it. Then, unless and until someone can prove beyond all doubt that such a thing could never possibly have happened, any claim that it did not remains simply a belief, an opinion, and not an established matter of fact. I learned this from reading Caroline on the diary's text and history and reading Alan on the difference between belief and knowledge.
Now I assume that Albert did not have the watch in his sight every moment of every day from the second he bought it until the day he took it to work.
So my case is made.
We don't know for sure. We can't know for sure. And Caroline knows all about the power of saying "I don't know." and "At least it's possible."
I won't go over the list of things again.
Do I believe that's what actually happened? According to Caroline's logic concerning whether the real James Maybrick wrote the diary, that's not relevant and I don't have to say. I don't even have to offer a remotely believable scenario wherein it might have happened (she has never offered a believable scenario wherein the real James wrote the book, has she?) All I have to say is that there's a chance it happened and we don't know for sure.
And, as she has so often demonstrated, no matter what the evidence might suggest, that's enough.
Happy to be a part of such a magical place, and enjoying this demonstration,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
"Now I assume that Albert did not have the watch in his sight every moment of every day from the second he bought it until the day he took it to work.
So my case is made.
We don't know for sure. We can't know for sure. And Caroline knows all about the power of saying "I don't know." and "At least it's possible.""
So let me see if I understand....your case here is proven because we can't know for sure and things are possible. Fair enough.
But all the reports on the Diary and Watch hardly nail the door shut on any of the following scenarios:
1) Both items genuine, Maybrick generated and he's the Ripper.
2) Items genuine, Maybrick generated but he's not the Ripper.
3) One but not both items genuine, Maybrick generated and he's the Ripper.
4) One but not both items genuine, Maybrick generated and he's not the Ripper.
5) Items old hoaxes, not generated by Maybrick, but Maybrick was the Ripper
6) Items old hoaxes, Maybrick not the Ripper
7) Items modern forgeries.
There are obviously endless permutations, and it appears to me that the scientific evidence and the textual evidence make certain of these scenarios highly unlikely, but not impossible. Not proven.
And so there is food for discussion.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
And that's exactly what I mean about "the way things work around here."
Perfect illustration, Sir Robert.
No wonder the discussion never goes anyplace whatsoever (except in circles).
Of course when all the real evidence we do have points in one direction (hoax) and none of the evidence in any way points in the other (the real James writing the diary and scratching the watch and killing these women) and when no one, that's right, absolutely no one has EVER been able to propose an even remotely likely or possible scenario which accounts for the evidence as it exists and still has the real James being the Ripper, then I think it's pretty safe to say that the discussion doesn't really have to go much of anywhere anyway regarding the question of authenticity. No one will actively advance it as a position here, so there's no discussion to have, is there?
By the way, Sir Robert, taking just one single evidentiary question as an example -- how would YOU explain the diary not being written in anything that even remotely resembles the real James Maybrick's handwriting (we now have a number of good samples) in such a way that it renders a "Maybrick generated" conclusion even possible, let alone likely?
Just curious,
--John
PS: Watch this.
1.) Evidence in favor of this conclusion? (Just one piece would do for now.)
2.) Evidence that the real James ever even saw either of these items? (Just one single piece will be fine.)
3.) Same question as 2? (Same minimum to meet.)
4.) Same question as 2 and 3? (Again, just one please.)
5.) My favorite. Are you out of your mind? The fact that anyone would come here and argue that this is a remotely serious proposition just indicates the level of nonsense at work here. This is exactly like saying "It's possible that Oscar Wilde was the Ripper." There's no evidence whatsoever to support either statement, but you can write them. If anyone takes them seriously, though, they deserved to be laughed at.
6.) Real evidence putting either artefact in the 19th century? (Give me just one piece, please.)
7.) And what do you know, now there is actual textual evidence after all...
Well, that was fun.  |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 7:18 pm: |
|
"5.) My favorite. Are you out of your mind? "
Allow me to point you to the TOS regarding personal insult:
"NOTE: The Casebook exists as a forum for ALL PEOPLE interested in the Ripper case - this includes pro-Diarists, pro-Sickertists, and yes, even those who still believe Lewis Carroll wrote anagrammatic Ripperine confessions. You don't have to agree with everyone, you don't have to agree with ANYONE, but you DO have to retain a certain level of decorum if you want to remain as a poster on this site. Personal insults of any kind, direct or implied, aimed toward any other user of this forum, are strictly prohibited. Users who repeatedly post such comments will have their posting privileges revoked - PERMANENTLY."
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 10:42 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Umbrage noted.
But if you read more carefully, you'll see it was a question.
And, in terms of option number five, a perfectly logical one at that.
Thanks for the response,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Are you completely stupid, John?
Now I assume that Albert did not have the watch in his sight every moment of every day from the second he bought it until the day he took it to work.
So my case is made.
Your stated case, that the watch is a bandwagon hoax, relies on the suspicious timing of the discovery of the scratches. If you have since abandoned your claim about the timing being beyond coincidence, perhaps you'd be good enough to let me know.
I've made it easier for you by making the crucial bit bold.
Now, here's the question again:
How can you claim the timing of the discovery was suspicious, without implying that Albert was knowingly involved in a set-up on the day he took it to work and the scratches were discovered?
It's a simple enough question, John, which is why I ask if you are completely stupid.
And what is my 'logic' concerning whether the real James Maybrick wrote the diary? If you can point me to where I have claimed that he did write the diary, or even that your belief that he didn't is wrong, I would be much obliged.
My questioning of your stated beliefs in no way implies that I believe the opposite. You should be pleased, as a teacher by profession, when people don't just take your word for everything, but weigh it against similar or conflicting opinions of other professionals in all sorts of related and unrelated fields.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 23, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Perhaps I am indeed "completely stupid."
Or perhaps I am just not explaining this clearly.
I will try again to answer Caroline's questions.
1. It remains simply possible that someone other than Albert scratched the watch after he bought it. I am not saying I believe this happened or that it is even especially likely, simply that it is possible and that therefore the belief that it did not happen is just that, a belief.
This position is identical in form to arguments I have seen around here that say, despite the absence of any real evidence, it remains at least possible that the real James wrote this diary. Not that anyone is saying they believe that is what happened or even that it is especially likely, merely that it is somehow possible, therefore the belief that it did not happen is just that, a belief.
That's what I have read here, so I assume the same logic works in all cases.
2. As for the timing of the discoveries, whether Albert faked the watch after he bought it or someone else faked the watch after he bought it and Albert discovered it, the timing would remain the same -- oddly coincidental with the immediately prior appearance of a fake diary that claimed James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
So in either case the timing of the scratched confession's appearance on the watch, or to be more precise, its appearance in public, remains suspicious, to say the least.
I hope that is clear.
Thanks,
--John
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Hi all
This is just a hypothesis with no evidence to back it up, but what if as originally bought the watch had no scratches in it? Then someone, either Robbie Johnson, the brother with the less that stirling character, or someone else, borrowed the watch, and put the scratches inside the watch? Albert may never have opened up the watch completely to see whether the scratches were there or not after he bought the timepiece.
In this scenario, Albert Johnson might have been as surprised as anyone, and thus completely innocent in any plan to foist the watch on the public as a true Ripper artifact, when his friend or workmate at the school saw the markings and connected it to the same James Maybrick who had been mentioned in the local press as being the Ripper.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
Are you completely stupid, John?
Oh dear. We seem to be falling a bit short of that ultra-polite, ultra-civil code of conduct that everyone signed up for a little while ago.
(Still, maybe it makes it all right if the message ends:
Love,
Caz
X
Never quite figured out how that worked out myself.)
But I'm afraid in a sense Mrs Morris has "sown the wind", and is now "reaping the whirlwind" here.
For so long, she's countered all the weighty objections to the authenticity of the "Maybrick" artefacts by coming up with outlandish explanations, which she insists are still "possible", provided they don't actually contravene the laws of physics.
I don't see anything in Chris George's scenario that Albert Einstein would take exception to.
But to try to ask a remotely sensible question here -
Mrs Morris is very insistent on John Omlor giving his opinion about the likelihood of this remarkable coincidence - of the scratches in the watch being discovered a matter of weeks after the diary was publicised.
Would it be too much to ask for her to put her own cards on the table for once, and tell us what she thinks about the likelihood of such a coincidence? Does she think it's believable, or not?
Because of course, if those scratches are old, it would have to be just a coincidence. And she seems to be so keen on the possibility of the scratches being old that it seems difficult to believe she finds such a coincidence unlikely.
But conversely, if she does have trouble with such a coincidence - as she seems to imply in her grumpy response to John - then she must have trouble with the scratches being old, mustn't she?
Is it too much to hope for that we are finally moving in the same direction, and that Mrs Morris is coming back to the same sort of sceptical position she occupied a few years ago?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 23, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
Surely,
i mean I hate to say anything controversial, but surely coincidences are by there nature, possible?
Jenni
ps I can see whats coming now no need to say anything!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1440
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
Hi John,
So in either case the timing of the scratched confession's appearance on the watch, or to be more precise, its appearance in public, remains suspicious, to say the least.
You still don't get it, do you? Or are you just pretending?
Albert claims no one, including Robbie, knew he even owned a pre-1888 watch and kept it in a drawer at home, until Albert decided to take it into work as a result of the discussion about the Antiques Roadshow tv programme, and the scratches were discovered.
Okay, so you believe Albert could be mistaken, and the hoaxer did get to find out somehow that Albert had bought a watch that would be of a suitable age for such a hoax; went to Albert's house and managed to find this suitable watch in a drawer, made the scratches and put it back.
And then - what?
If Albert was none the wiser at this point, and still none the wiser when he took the watch to work within just a few days of the hoaxer replacing it plus scratches, the discovery was entirely unrelated to the actual hoaxing of the watch.
And there you have your truly unbelievable coincidence - your very own miracle if you will: that the hoaxer had only to wait days before Albert just happened to set in motion the series of events that led to the appearance in public of the hoaxer's work.
Hi Chris P,
I have always been sceptical, and remain so, of any suggestion that Albert was knowingly involved in a 1993 bandwagon hoax, or even suspects his watch could have been used in this way while in his possession. I have given some of my reasons, which you are entitled to ignore or dismiss or argue against.
But I don't have to prove that Albert, and/or anyone known to him, wasn't involved in a 1993 hoax. If you think they were, it would be nice to see some actual evidence.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 24, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 647
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 8:00 am: |
|
Mrs Morris
Sorry, I realise you're very busy today posting on several threads, and perhaps don't have time to read very thoroughly what you're replying to, but what you wrote wasn't remotely an answer to what I asked.
I'd be genuinely interested in the answer: Don't you find it unlikely that the scratches on the watch would have been discovered by chance only a few weeks after the Maybrick Diary was publicised?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Since Caroline still doesn't offer us anything but her beliefs and opinions, and since nothing in them makes any scenario impossible, I think I'll let her answer Chris's fine question.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
Well then Caz,
as I said i wasn't going to repeat my current thinking I won't but hmm... if only Albert Johnson knew about the watch.
anyway, nevermind that, lets think about who owned the watch say between 1888 and 1973.
now ha ha 1888 we don't know i know that too.
but 1973, who owned it then?
Jenni
ps just thinking aloud.
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Sorry, but I am still trying to get an answer out of John, so if he will oblige, I will then make time to address yours.
Hi John,
You believe that it is too unlikely a coincidence that, only a few weeks after the diary first makes the Liverpool Daily Post, around late April 1993, the watch scratches appear on the scene.
Am I representing you fairly so far?
But here is where it all gets daft. You then manage to swallow an even bigger coincidence - that Albert, by pure chance, suddenly decides to take his watch - hoaxed only a matter of days previously - to work and, in front of witnesses, opens it up, sees the scratches, and, with the encouragement, help and advice of those witnesses, deciphers them, decides to call the local papers and is advised to contact the publisher of the forthcoming diary book.
And you have to open your mouth as wide as it can go in order to swallow this huge coincidence, while rejecting the lesser of the two as plainly ridiculous, in order to maintain your insistence that you are not accusing Albert, in any way, shape or form, of playing an active role in ensuring the hoax appeared on the scene. Had the watch remained in his drawer for another twenty or thirty years before anyone found the scratches, your 'too coincidental' argument would not apply.
So how am I meant to take this argument seriously when I watch as you swallow a greater coincidence because it happens to suit your purpose to do so?
This is about as far from logical, objective and consistent reasoning as I've ever seen you drift. And Chris P sits there lapping it all up and has the gall to ask me for my views on coincidences.
Incidentally, if Ally or anyone else is still interested, on page 241 of Shirley Harrison's Blake edition, she gives details of her interview with one of Albert's colleagues who was present during the discovery, and who worked with him at Liverpool Polytechnic.
Keith Skinner was present and the interview took place on February 12, 1997.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Actually, I've just looked at your question again:
Don't you find it unlikely that the scratches on the watch would have been discovered by chance only a few weeks after the Maybrick Diary was publicised?
John thinks it's a fine question, yet it should actually be aimed at him rather than me, because he is arguing that the scratches were discovered by chance only a few days after a hoaxer made them.
I think I will have to give up trying to work out what I think is likely or not, in the face of such obvious contrariety; how can I compete with the master?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 649
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 6:02 am: |
|
Sorry, but I am still trying to get an answer out of John, so if he will oblige, I will then make time to address yours.
... Chris P sits there lapping it all up and has the gall to ask me for my views on coincidences.
I realise you are spending a lot of time arguing with John (and others).
Perhaps I could save you a little time by explaining the point, in very simple terms.
John is not "swallowing" anything. He is countering your attempt to force him to accuse Albert Johnson of faking the watch, by pointing out that it is possible that Johnson had no knowledge of the faking. He is not asserting he believes this, still less that he considers it likely.
It's astonishing that you should take exception to this line of argument, as you've frequently used an identical one yourself. You must remember that - when people have argued that your suggested explanations of the difficulties with the diary involve astronomically unlikely coincidences - you have insisted that the crucial thing is simply that they are possible. In the sense that they don't contravene the laws of physics.
Surely that is straightforward enough for you to understand?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
Caroline Morris wrote:
... he is arguing that the scratches were discovered by chance only a few days after a hoaxer made them.
[Your emphasis]
You know this statement is not true.
Please could you correct it?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 25, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
One other simple fact, as a way of answering yet again, Caroline's repeated question.
I have no idea what or who prompted Albert to take the watch to work.
Is it possible that he was quietly encouraged to do so without his even realizing it? That the suggestion was made in passing or that the watch was casually mentioned by someone else, in a discussion about, say, a television programme?
Sure, I suppose it's possible.
But whatever happened, that does not change the suspicious timing of the watch's sudden appearance immediately following the public appearance of the diary.
I am sorry to see me being used as an excuse to avoid answering another poster's simple and direct question in a straightforward way.
So I will bow out of this discussion now and, having answered Caroline's question, request that she answer Chris's.
Here it is again:
"Don't you find it unlikely that the scratches on the watch would have been discovered by chance only a few weeks after the Maybrick Diary was publicised?"
I do hope Caroline will finally choose to answer.
Bye,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
if i were to say Albert johnson forged the watch, wouldn't i be libeling him?
Maybe i think he did, maybe john does, who knows who cares
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
So it appears that it is only 'possible', according to John's gospel, that Albert has no knowledge of his watch being hoaxed while in his possession, in one of three circumstances:
1) John is swallowing a number of greater coincidences (concerning all the events that needed to happen in order for the scratches to be discovered the way they were) than the coincidence you and he are asking if I find likely.
2) John considers it is possible that Albert was 'quietly encouraged' to take the watch to work and open the back and look at the surface 'without his even realizing it', or 'the suggestion was made in passing', or 'the watch was casually mentioned...in a discussion about, say, a television programme', by someone, let's not forget, who had already found out, without Albert's knowledge, that he owned a pre-1888 watch and where it was kept, and who visited his home and took it, and secretly made the scratches in the surface where one would find confirmation that the watch was 18 carat gold - and so end the later dispute arising from the Antiques Roadshow prog, when Albert just happened to tell a group of mates at work that he had an 18 carat gold watch and one of them said they didn't have 18 carat gold in Victorian times (so if Albert didn't know anything, John is presumably fingering this other poor chap).
3) John is suddenly happy to use a line of argument that you say is 'identical' to one I've frequently used myself. By using the word 'identical', you define John's coincidences, and 'explanations of the difficulties' with Albert being an innocent pawn in a hoaxer's game, as being 'astronomically unlikely'. John is now, according to you, using me (of all people) as his role model, and his arguments are being excused on the basis that 'the crucial thing is simply that they are possible. In the sense that they don't contravene the laws of physics'.
Don't forget who is saying all this about John, Chris; it ain't me.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
Caz,
it is possible.
this is more possible, albert forged it.
is that what you are saying also?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Very fine, post, Jenni.
I hope Caroline eventually chooses to answer Chris's simple question.
Until then, at least we know exactly what what we can know and can't know -- as you suggest.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 27, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 654
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
So it appears that it is only 'possible', according to John's gospel, that Albert has no knowledge of his watch being hoaxed while in his possession ...
Yes. That's right. John is arguing only that it is possible, in the same very limited sense that you have argued things in the past - in the sense that it doesn't contravene the laaws of physics.
Personally, I agree that it is astronomically unlikely. John may well agree with that too.
With regard to whether this is a valid line of argument, the one thing that's clear is that you're in no position to criticise it.
Another thing to bear in mind is that John has used this argument only in response to your attempt to manoeuvre him into making a potentially libellous accusation against Albert Johnson.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
yes the most likely of explanations is that Albert johnson did it. ok, that doesnt mean he did do it though does it?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I don't need to be in a 'position' to criticise John's argument, since you have done a splendid job agreeing with me that it is not a valid line of argument and is 'astronomically unlikely'. This is all I ever tried to explain to John. Many thanks for finishing the job for me.
If it is generally acknowledged to be 'astronomically unlikely' that Albert has no knowledge of the watch being hoaxed, if the scratches were made after July 1992, anyone who insists this is when they were made loses all credibility by also insisting they have not accused Albert of anything.
It doesn't convince anyone any more - not even you.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
Jenni,
You will please notice that Caroline has just made the argument that if something is astronomically unlikely, arguing that it is still possible is not valid.
Everyone,
Please note that if this is generally accepted, it should apply hereafter and henceforth universally to all arguments concerning the diary.
Now then, the question was, and still is:
Caroline,
"Don't you find it unlikely that the scratches on the watch would have been discovered by chance only a few weeks after the Maybrick Diary was publicised?"
I'm sure the answer will appear shortly,
--John (ever the optimist)
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris
you have done a splendid job agreeing with me that it is not a valid line of argument
As a matter of fact, what I wrote was:
With regard to whether this is a valid line of argument, the one thing that's clear is that you're in no position to criticise it.
What on earth do you think you're achieving by making all these blatantly untrue statements?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on February 01, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:29 am: |
|
John,
totally lost me now.
what?
email me!!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:57 am: |
|
Jenni,
I have. You'll enjoy this.
Amused this fine morning,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Hi John,
If you wish to return to the appropriate diary threads and open up the debate all over again concerning what you believe to be 'astronomically unlikely', feel free.
Meanwhile, we are discussing what Chris wrote, with regard to your (highly) original argument, that Albert was possibly the unsuspecting dupe of a hoaxer who somehow managed to set up the discovery of the scratches, and the events leading up to it, without apparently needing to be present himself:
Personally, I agree that it is astronomically unlikely. John may well agree with that too.
Well, do ya John?
Do you find it unlikely that the scratches on the watch would have been discovered by chance by a group of unsuspecting souls within days of a hoaxer making them?
I may answer Chris's almost identical (and highly unoriginal) question, concerning the lesser of two 'coincidences', if you can ever bring yourself to answer the one I posed long before Chris's was a twinkle in his adoring eye.
Love,
Caz
X |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 78
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Hi All.
Still going around in circles I see!
Harry.
Re your posts of 16th and 19th Jan.
You state that:
“Gold has the property,almost alone compared to other metals and alloys,of retaining markings ,in the original condition, almost indefinately.It is therefor,even for an expert,difficult to determine if a mark on that metal,is of recent or long standing.
It appears that only the inclusion of a foreign particle,suggests the possibility that the scratch marks might have been made many years ago.”
Not entirely true I’m afraid. The watch is 18 carat gold and therefore contains silver and copper amongst other metals. These other metals do tarnish over a period of time and hence Dr Wild’s silver enrichment test. You can make what you like of the test, but it is entirely wrong to suggest that the brass particle alone is the reason for suspecting the scratches are old. Far from it.
“The opposite to normal is abnormal.What abnormal conditions could effect the dating of the watch scratches.The tester again did not elaborate.
Could these abnormal conditions be created in a short period of time,so as to give a false value to the age of the scratches.The reports do not say,they only hint.
Before anyone states that other parts of the watch would also show signs of abnormal conditioning,should the ageing have been faked,bear this in mind.The back cover was hinged,so could have bee detached,and treated alone.”
Yes the back cover was hinged, but the scratches are on the inside of the inner cover which is not. It is therefore not removable and cannot be artificially aged separate to the rest of the watch case. The movement itself can be removed by taking out two small screws which are beneath the dial. This method of removal is not apparent unless the dial is removed, which involves the removal of three tiny taper pins between the plates of the watch itself. Not something an amateur would know about, let alone manage to do without leaving tell tale marks. I’ve seen too many amateur attempts at repairs on antique watches in my time.
Besides, nobody could detach it to put it under the SEN during the tests could they?
Now something for the rest of you chaps.
How did the repair marks/numbers get on top of the Maybrick scratches if Albert or a contemporary of his created the latter? Every watchmaker colleague of mine, that I have shown the watch photos to, instantly identifies them as repair numbers whether that’s what they are or not is unimportant. Whoever did this supposed hoaxing did both a lot of research, and also knew exactly what research he had to do!
Sir Robert.
Nice to see you here with the touch of sanity that seems to have come with you. I’ve started reading the Maybrick boards again after a long time of trying to have a real discussion with little success. Keep it up!
Regards to all
Paul
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 79
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Hi All.
Still going around in circles I see!
Harry.
Re your posts of 16th and 19th Jan.
You state that:
“Gold has the property,almost alone compared to other metals and alloys,of retaining markings ,in the original condition, almost indefinately.It is therefor,even for an expert,difficult to determine if a mark on that metal,is of recent or long standing.
It appears that only the inclusion of a foreign particle,suggests the possibility that the scratch marks might have been made many years ago.”
Not entirely true I’m afraid. The watch is 18 carat gold and therefore contains silver and copper amongst other metals. These other metals do tarnish over a period of time and hence Dr Wild’s silver enrichment test. You can make what you like of the test, but it is entirely wrong to suggest that the brass particle alone is the reason for suspecting the scratches are old. Far from it.
“The opposite to normal is abnormal.What abnormal conditions could effect the dating of the watch scratches.The tester again did not elaborate.
Could these abnormal conditions be created in a short period of time,so as to give a false value to the age of the scratches.The reports do not say,they only hint.
Before anyone states that other parts of the watch would also show signs of abnormal conditioning,should the ageing have been faked,bear this in mind.The back cover was hinged,so could have bee detached,and treated alone.”
Yes the back cover was hinged, but the scratches are on the inside of the inner cover which is not. It is therefore not removable and cannot be artificially aged separate to the rest of the watch case. The movement itself can be removed by taking out two small screws which are beneath the dial. This method of removal is not apparent unless the dial is removed, which involves the removal of three tiny taper pins between the plates of the watch itself. Not something an amateur would know about, let alone manage to do without leaving tell tale marks. I’ve seen too many amateur attempts at repairs on antique watches in my time.
Besides, nobody could detach it to put it under the SEN during the tests could they?
Now something for the rest of you chaps.
How did the repair marks/numbers get on top of the Maybrick scratches if Albert or a contemporary of his created the latter? Every watchmaker colleague of mine, that I have shown the watch photos to, instantly identifies them as repair numbers whether that’s what they are or not is unimportant. Whoever did this supposed hoaxing did both a lot of research, and also knew exactly what research he had to do!
Sir Robert.
Nice to see you here with the touch of sanity that seems to have come with you. I’ve started reading the Maybrick boards again after a long time of trying to have a real discussion with little success. Keep it up!
Regards to all
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Paul Butler wrote:
These other metals do tarnish over a period of time and hence Dr Wild’s silver enrichment test. You can make what you like of the test, but it is entirely wrong to suggest that the brass particle alone is the reason for suspecting the scratches are old. Far from it.
I can't see how the silver enrichment test could have been Wild's reason for suspecting the scratches were old, as his own opinion is clearly that the test was inconclusive:
"If this enrichment of silver occurs over a long period of time then this result would indicate that the engraving is of an age comparable with that of the watch. However, if this enrichment occurs in a short time scale and then stabilises nothing could be said about the age of the engraving. More work needs to be done to resolve this."
Not that Wild would be able to tell much from his measurements even in the former case, seeing that he found the silver concentration was higher within the scratches rather than on the surface, rather than lower, as he had apparently expected!
Chris Phillips
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
