| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:18 pm: | 
|
Caroline,
If you can explain to me why you think one scenario is "the lesser of the two 'coincidences'" then I might be able to answer your question.
And my original scenario does not have the scratches being discovered "by chance" at all. Remember, it supposed that the idea to examine the watch might have been suggested on purpose at some point in some conversation by someone else other than Albert without him either remembering it or, perhaps, even realizing it at the time.
Are you now suggesting that my answer to your question is (or should be) the same as your answer to Chris's question?
Are you saying that both scenarios are highly unlikely?
That would be progress,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Paul,
Here's a question. How would Maybrick have made these marks? What is a believable scenario for the real James Maybrick making these tiny scratches? Exactly what would he have done, process-wise?
Would you (or anyone) like to advance the case for these scratches actually being made by this guy?
You'd need some evidence, of course.
Looking forward to hearing the case,
--John |
Harry Mann
Police Constable
Username: Harry
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Hello Paul,
I think Chris Phillips has adequately answered your post,but i will add a little bit.
I understand that 25 per cent of the metal of the watch is other elements,and it is these that show change.What I asked is if those changes could be artificialy aged.
Now do not tell me that the inside back cover cannot be tampered with without some signs appearing on the outside.I do not believe that.
If it is a hoax,it may not even be the same watch as was purchased from the jeweller,or if the same watch not neccesserily the same back.In that case the date of marking could be anyone,s guess.It may have been prepared quite some time before presentation.
Do not underestimate the thought that has gone into the hoax,though at times the thinking seems a little bit out. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 9:03 pm: |
|
"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! "
Thank you for the kind remarks, although I would caution anyone from regarding me as sane. It seems to me that there is PLENTY to discuss here regarding the Watch, the Diary, Flo's murder trial - not to mention Maybrick himself - all aside from whether or not this has any connection with the Ripper case itself, which of course would be the cherry on top.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 5:44 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
Albert, accompanied by his brother, took his watch back more than once to Mr Murphy, the seller, to ask about its history, once the scratches had been discovered and deciphered. I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that the watch was the same watch with all its bits in the right places.
A hoaxer would have taken a big risk if anything had looked to Murphy suspiciously different from how he remembered it. For all your hoaxer knew, when Albert first returned with the watch, Murphy could have known every tiny detail there was to know about this particular watch, in particular the fact that there would have been no H 9 3 or 1275 when he sold it in July 1992, if a hoaxer engraved these marks in May 1993.
And you seem to have missed the point Paul made about the scratches being on the inside of the inner cover, not the back cover. Why would the back cover need to have been replaced, and wouldn't Murphy had noticed if it had?
Also, a potential hoaxer reacting to the breaking diary news, towards the end of April 1993, would have had to move pretty fast to get his work to Robert Smith by early June.
Remember, he would have had to think it all up from scratch (ha ha). And unless Albert was himself the hoaxer, or in on the action, the culprit would have had to know Albert had a pre-1888 watch and where it was kept; he would have had to take it, make the scratches and artificially age them; he would have thought to add the authentic looking repair/pawn marks as a finishing touch; he would have had to replace the watch before Albert noticed it was missing; then he would have had to somehow suggest to Albert (according to John's scenario) 'the idea to examine the watch...without him either remembering it or, perhaps, even realizing it at the time' (even though this doesn't appear to be compatible with the whole Antiques Roadshow scenario, as related by Albert and at least one of the witnesses present when the scratches were discovered).
And that doesn't begin to address how such a hoaxer could have been sure that anyone would notice the barely visible markings, let alone decide to examine them more closely, and then take them seriously enough to call the local paper, finally taking the watch to Robert Smith on the paper's advice.
Hi John,
I am not suggesting what your answer should be. I am still waiting to see what your answer is.
How likely, on a scale of one to ten, do you think it is that your little scenario is what actually happened? That no one present for the discovery need have been aware that the scratches were as fresh as a daisy and no more than a few days old - if that was indeed their age at the time?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 04, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
So Caz,
we seem to agree. IF (and its an if) the watch was forged in modern times AFTER (following this) the diary was public knowledge then no one other than albert johnson could have done so, or at least he must have known who did do it? do you agree that IF the watch was forged AFTER the diary was made public knowledge then that MUSt be the case?
saying that i'm still not sure that sits comfortably in my mind. but is that what you are driving at?
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1740
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
I have a question how would anyone have made the scratches? leaving aside who it was and when they did it. how did they do it?
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I'm simply asking John for his views, and for some reason he is being uncharacteristically shy about airing them.
I, on the other hand, am well known for questioning the claims made by others here, which should not require the expression of any views I may hold.
My views are quite irrelevant, as I am not the one making bold claims (or indeed any claims) about the age of either artefact.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1741
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 6:16 am: |
|
then i'm afraid you've lost me
what is your point?
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:55 am: |
|
Caroline,
I am well known for questioning the claims made by others here, which should not require the expression of any views I may hold.
And remember, as Jenni has told us many times, enumerating degrees of possibility is not the point. Something is either possible or not. Right?
If you don't agree with her, then we should indeed head back to the diary threads to talk about degrees of "likely" and about "tin matchbox empty" not referring to "tin matchbox empty" and the Poste House not meaning the Poste House right there in the same town and library miracles reported by liars and one line from the whole history of literature being excerpted and cited in two books both of which appeared in public in modern times and one guy having umpteen completely different handwritings and several other truly amazing and remarkable coincidences and, more importantly, their all taking place at the very same time -- which needs to have happened for this book to be anything other than a modern hoax. Yes, let's talk about what's "likely."
Or we can just stay right here and talk about the degree of unlikeliness that the watch, after a hundred and twenty years, should just suddenly turn up, scratched by James Maybrick as the Ripper, immediately after a diary claiming Maybrick was the Ripper appears in the public.
I think the point is becoming clearer, finally.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1749
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
but nonetheless still possible.
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1750
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
possible in many senses.
Jenni
ps please lets not head back there!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Jenni,
But Caroline doesn't want to talk about "possible." She wants to talk about "likely."
Thanks, though, for the timely reminder. 
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1753
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
but John surely by it's very nature something possible is likely ?
well ok I am winding you up slightly but, the point remains it doesnt matter if it is likelly only if it is possible.
That said let's have some fun,
It is possible someone faked the watch behind Albert Johnsons back without him knowing. But it isn't likely.
it's possible and likely that Michael maybrick could write verse.
It is possible that JTR forgot where he put MJK's breasts, but it isn't likely.
It is possible the Poste House doesn't mean the Poste house, it isn't very likely.
It is possible that James Maybrick suffered from MPD and was never locked up - is it likely?
It is possible that Mrs Hammersmith existed - it's more likely than the other above mentioned things.
It is possible that the miracle in Liverpool library happened, and it is likely (it is!).
It is possible that tin match box empty was written by pure pure pure pure chance exactly the same, but it's extremly unlikely.
it is possible that the watch and diary were faked independetly yet appeared together, or indeed that at least one is not fake, but it isn't likely.
It is possible James Maybrick was JTR but it isn't likely.
It is possible that the diarist found o costly form another source other than the sphere book in Liverpool library, but it isn't likely.
it is possible that these 'remarkable coincidences all took place at the same time', but it isn't likely.
it is possible that an initial refers to something else, but it isn't likely.
it is possible that the handwriting examples of James Maybrick had many different handwritings or disguised his handwriting, is it likely?.
it is possible that the watch has not been intereferred with but it isn't likely.
what do we mean by likely anyway?
did i miss anything?
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
And Jenni,
I thought your question was a good one. By what specific set of acts would someone actually make these "barely visible markings?" What would be needed?
And exactly how would the real James Maybrick have done it? What would that process have looked like, specifically? I'd still love to see a believable scenario that has our man really doing this.
I wonder, would it have been an easier thing to do for someone in modern times?
Just "questioning,"
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1754
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
John,
our posts overlapped.
i don't see how it would be any easier itn modern times. in fact you would need an old engraving tool easier to get hold of in old times wouldn't you agree!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Oops, we cross-posted.
Jenni,
Putting aside whether I agree with all of your conclusions (I don't) or whether you left anything out (you did), I will just cite one line of yours:
"...the point remains it doesn't matter if it is likelly only if it is possible."
Not according to the discussion above from Caroline.
And that was my point.
Thanks,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1755
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:43 am: |
|
and really,
it doesn't matter if it is likely only if it's possible.
as our Feldy reminded us in the words of Arthur Conan Doyle
"...when you have eliminated the impossible
whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth"
and maybe he was right after all.
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:46 am: |
|
Cross posted, again.
Jenni,
I don't know. I don't know what James would have to have actually done to make these so-called barely visible markings. I don't know what a forger would have had to do in modern times. No, I don't think using "an old engraving tool" is the only way it could be done, but I really don't know.
In any case, no one has offered a believable account of the real Maybrick doing it, just as no one has ever offered a believable account of the real Maybrick writing the diary or killing these women or a believable explanation for the handwriting differences or for so many of the other unlikely coincidences on your list. So I can't say that I expect a convincing scenario from anyone for this one, either.
Perhaps all those absences should tell us something.
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Look at your list again. Unfortunately, if you label nothing in the case as "impossible," then the Conan Doyle quote is not useful.
That's one of the many reasons why Feldman's book is not useful either.
Just having fun now,
--John
PS: Actually Paul's book is useful. We need some chuckles here now and again.
(Message edited by omlor on February 04, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1756
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
John,
we did it again!
yes I know what your point was which was why i agreed with it first then said lets have some fun!
i only imagine which points you don't agree with!! and wonder what i left out. i tried my best to think of everything!! ha!
likely vs possible - possible always has to win.
you know why, because if something is possible it is possible and thats that. no argument
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1757
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
John,
no no.
by it's very nature according to feldy some of that stuff should be impossible but i have labelled it possible. in other words the impossible has been eliminated but what is left is contradictory,.
am sure we will cross posts again!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Jenni,
You write:
"...if something is possible it is possible and thats that."
Yes. In my business, we call that a tautology.
Thanks,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
A hoaxer would have taken a big risk if anything had looked to Murphy suspiciously different from how he remembered it.
I don't quite understand the implication here.
Exactly what risk would Johnson have been running? What would have happened to him if Murphy had said the watch looked suspiciously different?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1758
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
And BTW
you didn't mention space aliens once, thanks for that!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1759
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
John,
indeed that was it's purpose reinforcement through repetition!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
Jenni,
You're missing part of the definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1761
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
because after all if something IS possible it IS possible.
now watch reports...no rather testing the watch!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
No John i am ignoring it!
"A tautology may be intended to amplify or emphasize a certain aspect of the thing being discussed"
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Jenni,
And, "In logic, a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative."
But it's the perfect logical figure for Diary World, I'll give you that.
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Incidentally in case anyone has forgotten after all this side fun, Caroline and I were not discussing what was possible. We were discussing what was likely.
The diary. The watch. What is likely?
You know.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1766
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
I know John and before you starting calling me tautological I already explained several times why it doesn't matter what is likely! I'll happily explain it to Caz too next time she shows up!
Of course it is not likely that JTR wrote a diary and scratched a watch. but necessarily it is possible. on that we might even agree.
The miracle in Liverpool library is likely.
MY point was that we should be discussing what is possible!!
Cheers
Jenni
ps
Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.
TAUTOLOGY
A tautology is the unnecessary repetition of a meaning through the use of two words that mean the same thing. It has been argued that consensus of opinion is a tautology, because consensus itself means “a preponderance of opinion.” But see CONSENSUS. Helpful assistance is unquestionably tautological, as are free gift and new innovation.
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1767
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
all i meant was either something is possible or it isn't.
if it is possible you cant say it couldn't have happened, can you now? else it wouldnt be possible, would it?
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Jenni,
I've sent you email explaining why tautological claims cannot carry truth value by definition.
The definition you cite above, by the way, is the one for linguistics, not for logic. You can see both at the beginning of the page I cited earlier. You were creating a logical tautology, not a linguistic one. "If something is x then it is x." That's a logical tautology and is by definition valid but non-informative. Linguistic tautologies, on the other hand, are more akin to redundancies in language, for example, "free gift."
It's an important difference.
And neither helps us with what is or is not likely.
Anyway, I've sent you mail.
This has become too much like what I do at work.
See ya',
--John
PS: The miracle in the library not only is not at all likely, it never happened.
By the way, did you... Nah, never mind.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1769
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
John, John, John,
never mind tautology. Lets look at the evidence .
You and Caz are talking about what is likely which is fine because it isnt likely James did it. But I am talking about what is possible. Which isn't fine because it means it's possible James did it (well hang on only possible in that we havent been able to show it impossible!!)Possible in that there is absolutly nothing to link him to it but he hasnt an alibi!
At the same time most of the textual inaccuracies have some vaguely possible explanation, some more possible than others, some only possible because they havent been proved impossible yet (i am thinking of the poste house!!)
Most are unlikely.
The 'miracle' in Liverpool library was not miraclous. it is likely. of course neither thing means happened.
no never will do either!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Jenni,
I thought not. I'm not going to cite my own library experience, either.
Just so you know, Paul Butler is now over on another thread claiming it's an "impossibility" that Albert or anyone scratched the watch after the diary came out.
I thought you might be interested. 
I think most of us here agree on what is likely concerning the origins of the watch and the diary. I said "most."
Of course, I could be wrong, as always.
Satisfied,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1772
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
John,
and so ends todays philosohpy lecture?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1773
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
ps one thread would make life so much simpler!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Harry Mann
Police Constable
Username: Harry
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Hello Caroline,
You have explained pretty well what a hoaxer would have to do,but it does not have to have met your timeframe.The idea of a hoax began in the mind of one person,and no one has any idea of when that was,but certain indications might lead one to believe that it was post 1980.
Although Albert and his brother returned to the jewellers,it seems from your post it was to enquire about the history of the watch,and not for a detailed examination.Unless the jeweller had taken photos or detailed in report the scratches and markings,then he would have to rely on memory.
It is strange that Albert confided so much in his brother once the scratches had been identified,whereas before ,he had shoved it in a drawer and not even shown it to the brother.
One other thing that baffles me,if the scratches were visible as letters after the polishing by the jeweller,how identifiable would they be before,taking into account that the lighting in the jeweller,s shop would have been as good if not better than the light at Albert,s work. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 7:37 am: |
|
One other thing that baffles me,if the scratches were visible as letters after the polishing by the jeweller,how identifiable would they be before,taking into account that the lighting in the jeweller,s shop would have been as good if not better than the light at Albert,s work.
Not only that, but it's worth remembering that Dundas swore an affidavit that the "Maybrick scratches" were not on the watch when he examined it under magnification in 1992.
Strangely, his "expert" opinion is glibly disregarded by the people who are eager to read so much into the preliminary and conditional conclusions of Turgoose and Wild.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1784
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Hang on, i have a question,
if dundas swore an affidavit that when he examined the watch under magnification in 1992 they weren't there and they were wouldn't that be a matter for the courts?
Just thinking aloud here!
just curious
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 678
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Jenni
That was why I was asking Caroline Morris what risk a hoaxer would have run in taking back the watch to Murphy. Not much, apparently!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Excuse me, i'm very slow and lost!
When they took the watch back to Murphy had Dundas signed the affidavit? i thought he hadn't?
secondly,
been as how Dundas says the scratches weren't there and has sworn an affidavit and the watch reports say they were there, there's an interesting contradiction. if it means Dundas is lying, can't Albert Johnson, and or someone sue him. unless of course he isn't lying and the watch reports are wrong?
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
The watch reports don't exactly "say they were there."
But you knew that already.
Having a lovely Saturday,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1792
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
John,
for your benefit here is my point.
what is the affidavit for?!
what do the watch reports suggest according to anyone who doesnt think the watch is a modern forgery?
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on February 05, 2005)
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I understand your concern about the legal issue, and I think it's a valid one.
I've sent you e-mail about the reports themselves, just so we understand each other.
All's well,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
John,
we understood each other before on that issue. I refer you to my post above of 1.49pm!
i repeat to anyone who might care to answer what is the affidavit for?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 32
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
There was an article in the paper here saying based on the watch Maybrick must be the Ripper.
I don't think so *nods head as smilies won't work* |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1798
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
I hate to bang on about things, but this affidavit is concerning me.
So now i know what an affidavit is, it is a legally binding oath, I was just wondering some more about it. I am even tempted to say it's not the kind of thing you'd make unless you were sure. who'd want suing?
Feldman (2002 Virgin edition)
"Inexplicably, almost two years later [than when Feldman asked Dundas about the watch]on the 3 July 1996, Timothy Dundas swore an affidavit that the watch pictured in the Liverpool Daily Post with Albert johnson in September 1993, was the watch that he 'repaired'. The affidavit that Mr Dundas swore was as a result of an investigation by Mr Alan grey, a private investigator in Liverpool, working with the full knowledge of a certain Mr. Melvin Harris." (pp 242)
Harrison 1998 Blake edition
"The statement from Tim Dundas, which then appeared on the Internet, said that when he cleaned the watch there were no scratches." (pp248)
BTW would that be on this site, only i have the casebook cd rom.
Linder/Morris/Skinner
"On 3 July 1996 Gray arranged for the horologist Timothy Dundas to make an affidavit[...]Dundas had no doubts that ny marks relating to Jack The ripper had been made since his examination of the watch" (pp218)
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1799
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
And just one other tiny thing while i think about it, did Dundas know the conclusions of the Turgoose/Wild reports when he made the affidavit, only i assume Albert johnson, feldy et al did?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
