|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1802
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 11:20 am: | 
|
Belinda,
here being Australia, i take it?
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
Why do you find it ‘strange’ that Albert confided in his brother once the scratches had been identified, but had kept his watch in a drawer until then and not even shown it to his brother?
I certainly don’t tell my brothers about everything I buy, let alone show them. (Does anyone?) But I would have made an exception if I later found that something I already owned had an alleged ripper confession built in! Albert ‘confided’ in just about everybody at that point, didn’t he? The watch was just a watch until the scratches came to light.
Hi Chris, Jenni,
The question is, could Dundas have been 100% certain, either a year later, in 1993, or in 1996, when he swore the affidavit, that the watch he remembered as having no scratches, apart from the usual repair/pawn marks, was the same watch Murphy gave him to service, along with others, in early 1992, and the same watch Murphy subsequently sold to Albert, after trying to improve the appearance of scratches he obviously did see at the time?
And if Dundas was remembering the same watch, what happened to the repair/pawn marks (plural) he saw on the surface in question?
Was Dundas ‘Memory Man’, concerning all the watches passing through his hands (while Murphy apparently knew it was Albert’s future watch that came back from Dundas, but is simply mistaken when he says this was the watch he attended to after Dundas had returned it to him and before he sold it to Albert) ? Or did Dundas have so few watches to work on at the time that Albert’s was a doddle to remember ?
If Dundas thought he was sure, he did nothing wrong by swearing an affidavit. But if he only thought he was sure, it’s up to us to judge just how sure he could have been in all the circumstances.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 08, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1812
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Caz,
i don't know.
that's why i am asking.
what was the point of the affidavit? by the point i mean what was hoped to be gained out of it? what is the legal implications if the affidavit is wrong?
For the record I am not saying Dundas did anything wrong. i am quite content to believe that he doesn't recall any scratches being there in 1992 when he polished it (surprised?)
I don't know what did happen to the repair or pawn marks? what did they consist of?
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
Caroline asks,
...could Dundas have been 100% certain, either a year later, in 1993, or in 1996, when he swore the affidavit, that the watch he remembered as having no scratches, apart from the usual repair/pawn marks, was the same watch Murphy gave him to service, along with others, in early 1992..."
Ah, yes. The second watch theory.
Somewhere, Paul Feldman is smiling.
Also, I suspect Caroline's brothers aren't exactly like Albert's brother.
No, Jenni, I'm not surprised,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
If you want to try to cast doubt on Dundas's sworn evidence, that's up to you. But however much you may dislike it, you can't change what he said.
It's just one of the pieces of evidence pointing towards a recent hoax, together with the astonishing coincidence of the Maybrick scratches supposedly being discovered within weeks of the Mayrbick diary being publicised, and the suspicious wear and tear on a hidden surface that should have been protected from scratches.
Most people will draw the obvious conclusion. In that context, there's no reason to think that Dundas gave false testimony on oath.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1814
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
That is his sworn evidence after all. who else has given sworn evidence btw? |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Hi all
I see no reason to doubt the affidavit sworn to by horologist/watch repairer Tim Dundas. I should think that even a few years later than when he examined the watch, he would recall a Victorian 18-carat gold watch hallmarked 1846 and made by the Lancaster watchmaker William Verity, and that he would remember the details of both the watch's manufacture and its appearance and condition. For someone in the watch repairing trade, I should think such details would per se be memorable and interesting enough to retain in the memory bank to recall accurately later.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
exactly Chris TG,
what you said!
Jenni |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 12
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 3:42 am: |
|
Caroline,
But it was not,in a sense,an ordinary watch bought to tell time.
It was to Albert,so we are led to believe,a large outlay in money for a man that did not have a great deal,so it was special.In that case I would expext it to be shown to family members. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I am also quite content to believe Dundas doesn't recall seeing any ripper related scratches, in any of the watches he has serviced, including Albert's.
Private investigator Alan Gray arranged for Dundas to make the affadavit. It's a straightforward enough procedure, in which a person agrees to state for the record something that, to the best of his/her knowledge is true. Dundas stated for that record:
I examined this watch and serviced it and I think I fitted a spring and polished the case...
(Did he also think his work involved looking closely enough at the surface in question to notice any ripper related markings if they were there?)
...A month or so later Mr Stewart contacted me and asked me if I had seen any marks on this watch, relevant to 'Jack the Ripper', and I told Mr Stewart the only marks on the watch were repair marks.
It was in fact over a year later that Mr Murphy (not Stewart - that was the name of the shop) contacted Dundas to ask if he'd seen any marks while servicing the watch in early 1992.
And until the ripper related marks were made, there wasn't a single repair mark on the surface in question (unless anyone is suggesting that the hoaxer could have obliterated every trace before making his own marks). The one and only repair mark Dundas could have seen, therefore, if the watch was hoaxed at a later date, is the 20789 on the inside rim.
You asked:
who else has given sworn evidence btw?
Mike Barrett has. Alan Gray was also involved with at least one of Mike's affidavits.
Hi Chris P,
However much you may dislike it, you can't change what Dundas said (or what Mike Barrett said for that matter). I am quite content with what he said and wouldn't want to change it for the world.
I think we already guessed that no one had noticed any ripper related marks anywhere before Albert took the watch to work that day. And that is basically all Dundas was really entitled to say, considering the marks are barely visible - that he hadn't noticed any such marks. He could not have known there weren't any, unless he consciously remembered poring over the surface in question, and not being able to see any marks whatsoever apart from the stamped RS, crown and 18.
Hi Chris G,
You seem very sure of your ground here. So do you know roughly how many watches passed through Dundas's hands between early 1992 and the summer of 1993? Do you know if he kept a record of every watch he worked on? And do you know how many years he had been in the trade?
One snippet that I had forgotten reading about in Shirley's book is that the RS stamped into the surface in question apparently stands for Ralph Samuel: who by 1845 was a partner with Jacob Lewis Samuel and Co., watch and dial makers of 54 Wood Street, Liverpool, and of Clerkenwell, London.
There's that Liverpool and London connection again - pure coincidence this time, of course, but intriguing none the less. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
oh i was under the impression we weren't sure what the other scratches were.
so we are sure that there hallmarks?
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 684
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris
I am also quite content to believe Dundas doesn't recall seeing any ripper related scratches, in any of the watches he has serviced, including Albert's.
Perhaps you could clarify something for us.
Did Dundas say, in his sworn affidavit, that he "didn't recall" seeing any scratches on the watch, or did he say that he did recall that there were no scratches on the watch?
It's quite an important difference.
While you would be content to believe the first of these, if Dundas had said it, you would not be content to believe the second, I think.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Imagine, a company in the middle of the nineteenth century with offices in Liverpool and London! What are the odds, huh?
Caroline now feels comfortable telling us what Mr. Dundas could and "could not have known." Of course, we know what he said, and both of the Chris's are right. It's just another piece on the pile of evidence that points (like so many of them do) to these hoaxes being modern.
Finally, there is this piece of verbal misdirection which should not be allowed to pass.
Caroline writes:
"And until the ripper related marks were made, there wasn't a single repair mark on the surface in question (unless anyone is suggesting that the hoaxer could have obliterated every trace before making his own marks).
But of course, since she has no idea when the ripper related marks were made, she has no way of knowing for certain what was there when they were made, does she? (Other than her own desire to spin other people's sentences.)
Perhaps she should take a lesson from herself concerning her claims to knowledge. If it applies to Mr. Dundas, surely it applies to her as well.
Sometimes a bit of self-reflection can be a useful tool,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
I addressed the very point you made in my post.
Hi Jenni,
oh i was under the impression we weren't sure what the other scratches were.
so we are sure that there hallmarks?
Nope, I've read this over and over and don't know what you mean by 'the other scratches'.
Hi John,
So tell me - what is it about Dundas's testimony that makes you so confident about accepting that he could state categorically, more than a year after servicing the watch, that there were no scratches on the surface in question, while you reject Murphy's claim that he noticed scratches there and "tried to buff them out with jeweller's rouge"?
Was it Dundas's uncertain recollection that he thought he had fitted a spring and polished the case?
Was it his faulty recollection that the man who contacted him was called Mr Stewart?
Or was it his claim that he was asked about the ripper related marks a month or so after he had serviced the watch in early 1992 (which was clearly an impossibility)?
I'm not suggesting Dundas consciously reduced the reality - that more than a year passed before he was asked if he'd seen anything - down to just 'a month or so', in order to make his remarkable feat of memory sound a whole lot less remarkable. I'm just trying to work out why you put all your trust in the memory of someone who could be this confused with - of all things - time? 
You may have forgotten the Turgoose report, but I haven't. I may not be certain of anything, but Dr Turgoose was certain that there were no signs of any repair marks having been made beneath the ripper related marks.
So you do seem to be suggesting that a hoaxer could have obliterated every discernible trace of the repair marks Dundas claims to have seen before starting work on his ripper related ones.
You may be right, but I would be very interested to know how you think this was actually achieved, assuming you accept all of Dundas's testimony without question.
A couple of questions for everyone now. In Paul Begg's article, he draws attention to part of Dr Wild's report, and I quote:
to give an accurate date from the surface composition and the brass particles 'it would be necessary to analyse several standards of known age, encompassing the age of the watch to recent time, of both brass and gold which had been known to have been exposed to similar conditions'.
Now then. Did he mean that the standards had to be known to have been exposed to similar conditions to each other, or similar conditions to the watch itself?
If he meant to the watch itself, we are stymied since no one knows what conditions the watch had been exposed to over the years, either by accident or design, when Albert handed it over for examination. And that is precisely why further tests are being called for!
My other question is how would one go about collecting several standards of 'known' age - presumably other gold watches, or similar items, containing man-made scratches 'known' to date back to various specific points in time? Wouldn't the exact age of such scratches be almost impossible to verify, without some sort of independent documentary evidence?
Maybe I'm being unnecessarily negative here; I hope I am, and that someone will put me right.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
i mean the proper engravings h 9/3 and the number etc.
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:19 am: |
|
'Or was it his claim that he was asked about the ripper related marks a month or so after he had serviced the watch in early 1992 (which was clearly an impossibility)? '
its only a clear IMPOSSIBILITY if you believe that the marks were not there at that point in time.
sorry to be picky.
and whose saying the repair marks arent the ones we see today?
just confused here about marks! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris
I addressed the very point you made in my post.
On the contrary, the reason I asked is that I think you've blurred the distinction in your posts.
Please could you give me a clear answer?
Did Dundas say, in his sworn affidavit, that he "didn't recall" seeing any scratches on the watch, or did he say that he did recall that there were no scratches on the watch?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:25 am: |
|
so you don't think more tests would be helpful?
(three posts when one would have done sorry!) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Caroline begins by asking me six questions.
But since what I claimed was that she cannot be certain what Mr. Dundas was and was not able to know (since she's not him), nor can she be certain what was or was not on the watch before the Ripper markings were made (she wasn't there and doesn't know when they were made), none of her questions to me are relevant.
Until and unless she can demonstrate how she can know either of these things for certain (she can't), my claim remains intact and logically obvious.
And, of course, it is still far from certain whether these scratches were made prior to, during, or after any other marks on the watch.
Further thorough and careful scientific testing in a full laboratory setting by scientists who are finally given unlimited access to this thing might change that. But... Well, we know the but, don't we?
Meanwhile...
Speculation and preliminary observations by definition preclude certainty.
Finally, her questions concerning further possible tests on this artefact and what they might tell us are, obviously, best answered by scientists. Perhaps someone should show one the watch and ask him what he thinks can be done.
Perhaps.
I'm sure there'll be an argument against such a logical and common-sense suggestion.
Won't there?
--John
PS: Caroline obviously isn't going to answer Chris's simple question, so does anyone else know the specifics? Which is it? I'd be interested to know as well. Any help would be appreciated.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
pp 218 of ripper diary
'"The only markings on this watch at that time were repair markings. A month or so later Mr Stewart contacted me and asked me if I had seen anything on the watch, relevant to 'Jack The Ripper', and i told Mr Stewart the only marks on the watch were repair marks'." |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 689
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Jenni
Many thanks.
So when Caroline Morris was laying out her belief that Dundas just didn't "recall" seeing any marks, the bit she chose to represent by "..." in her quotation from his affidavit was the definite statement:
The only markings on this watch at that time were repair markings.
Elsewhere on these boards, Paul Butler has given another quotation from Dundas (also rather elliptical):
[he] stated quite clearly in 1994 that he saw "the usual repair numbers.....repairers and pawn numbers, this sort of thing"
If you could see this bit in the text of the affidavit, it might be interesting to know what the ..... represents.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Chris,
from Harrison, (1998 blake edition)
'"the marks on the watch relating to "Jack The Ripper" have been made on the watch since I examined and repaired it in 1992, the whole suggestion that this watch belonged to "Jack The ripper" is completely false."'
pp 248
From Feldman (2002 Virgin edition)
'"....Marks on this watch relating to "Jack the Ripper" have been made on the watch since i examined and repaired it in 1992, the whole suggestion that this watch belonged to "Jack The Ripper" is completely false."'
pp 242 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1856
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
where is the affidavit now? |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 690
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
I wonder if anyone could help out with this business of the crossing of the so-called "repair marks" and the Maybrick scratches.
I have spent some time looking at Turgoose's micrographs, and I've still to see any clear evidence that the "repair marks" were made over the Maybrick scratches.
There seem to be four micrographs that could potentially supply such evidence:
(1) Micrographs 2 and 3
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/watchreport.2.html?showpage=6
Turgoose says (of micrograph 2), "The horizontal marking, which is not apparent on the Photograph 1, is part of the large 'J'. This, and particularly the expanded view in Micrograph 3, show that the '9/3' was written after the horizontal line ..."
Can anyone point to what indicates this? I think if I had to jump one way or the other on the basis of these micrographs, I should say the opposite.
(2) Micrograph 4
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/watchreport.2.html?showpage=7
Turgoose says, "From the central region Micrograph 4 shows that the '5' [of H 9/3] is inscribed across the 'J', with other features as described above."
This one puzzles me even more. From Micrograph 2 it looks as though the horizontal scratch, which Turgoose says is part of the J, passes towards the bottom of the '5', and I'm not even clear whether it's shown in this micrograph.
(3) Micrograph 5
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/watchreport.2.html?showpage=7
Turgoose says this "shows the central region of the 'copper plate H' showing similar features".
I don't know whether the "similar features" include the order of the 'H' versus the 'J', but I'm at a loss to know which bit of the 'H' is shown here, and whether the "horizontal marking" is shown in this micrograph.
Is any of this this clearer to anyone else than it is to me?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
micrograph 2 and 3
2 this shows that the J in the line I am Jack is cutting under the 9 in 9/3 and under the 5.
to be clear the line horizonatally is the upright part of the J. no the tail. sorry.
microgragh number three i think is a close up of the point which the J intersects the / in 9/3!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
micrograph number 4 shows the simliar area with the number ending 275
not sure what the line imediatly next to the 5 is!
not sure how the J relates to the 5 unless i am looking in the wrong place on the photo in ripper diary at where the j is supposed to be. oh hold the phone maybe the j has a loop on in which case it goes under the 5!
five
the loop on the j intersects the H in h 9/3(incidentially the loop gioes under the 9) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
2 this shows that the J in the line I am Jack is cutting under the 9 in 9/3 and under the 5.
Well, the horizontal marking doesn't even meet the 5 in that micrograph, as far as I can see.
How can you tell the marking is cutting under the 9, rather than vice versa?
Certainly the 9 is more deeply engraved, so that you can see a continuous dark line passing through the horizontal marking on the left. But given the shallowness of the horizontal marking, that could be the case either way.
In fact, doesn't that continuous dark line look as though it's been slightly distorted where the horizontal marking passes through (over?) it?
I don't think these micrographs are entirely easy to interpret, at any rate.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 692
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Thinking about it, a couple of things would make good sense if Turgoose was wrong about this.
Firstly, there would have no fewer than three "repair marks" available for Dundas to see in 1992.
Secondly, it could have been the "repair marks" themselves that Murphy was trying to polish out.
At a stroke this would achieve the seemingly impossible, and reconcile the stories of Dundas and Murphy.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
im not telling you what i think. im telling you what i think the report is saying! |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 81
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Chris
I think “most people”, to use one of your favourite terms, have probably poured over those micrographs for a very long time. I for one can see what Turgoose is getting at, but then I’m biased because I don’t believe for a moment that the watch was hoaxed after the diary came to light. You seem to, and you’re seeing it differently.
What it comes down to is that we have the clearly stated views of an expert who not only had the watch in his possession, but also had access to sophisticated microscopy with which to examine it, against the opinion of one or two people who haven’t been within miles of the watch, who are clearly not experts and who are relying on black and white photographs to try and back up their opinions.
I still know which way my money is going.
“Secondly, it could have been the "repair marks" themselves that Murphy was trying to polish out.”
Why on Earth would anyone in their right mind try to do this?
90% of all old English watches have these marks. The Maybrick watch is no exception. They are part of the history of the item and their presence will have no effect on the desirability or value of the watch.
There also seems to be an impression gaining currency here and on the other watch thread that the Maybrick watch is in some way special. That all those who repaired it would remember every detail about it. I’m sorry but it isn’t. It’s a nice watch, but any decent jewellers specialising in old watches could produce you half a dozen of the same. They’d nearly all have repair numbers just like H93 and 1275, but probably not claims to have been owned by JTR.
So the fact remains, that until and unless Turgoose can be shown to be so incompetent a scientist as to get even the basic stuff like which scratch goes over which wrong, any suggestion of Albert having hoaxed his own watch remains a complete and physics defying impossibility.
All the best
Paul
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Paul,
you mean
H9/3? which is what the watch says after all.
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on February 15, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1900
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
i don't understand why Albert hoaxing the watch (or indeed anyone doping do in modern times) would be a 'complete and physics defying impossibility'
maybe im a bit slow! |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
"Impossibility."
Hear that, Jenni?
And I love the fact that Paul feels free to choose one first-hand testimony (Turgoose's) and ignore another (Dundas's), even though they seem to conflict and even though the former announced itself as finally speculative at best and the latter says within a sworn affidavit that "The only markings on this watch at that time were repair markings."
I'm glad Paul's not betting my money.
Still, perhaps he would like to answer the question that Caroline wouldn't.
Paul,
"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?"
Just curious,
--John
PS: Hi Jenni. I posted before seeing yours. I knew you'd be here as soon as I read that. 
(Message edited by omlor on February 15, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1901
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
John,
was just about to point out to you we had crossed posted!
Glad to see am predictable as ever.
of course the order of the scratches can't really tell us wrote them and when can it? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1902
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
ps I don't think Turgoose is imcompetent and don't think it sound to suggest such things.
nor do i think Dundas has any reason at all to lie. Unless of course...
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on February 15, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:15 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I'm glad too.
With a wink and a nod,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
of course i should add no one was doping they were doing
cheers
jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Paul, I have a question for you, and I apologize if it has been covered before.
Why did (or do) shops put a repair mark on a valuable watch? Wouldn't it be considered a mar?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Paul
I think “most people”, to use one of your favourite terms, have probably poured over those micrographs for a very long time. I for one can see what Turgoose is getting at, but then I’m biased because I don’t believe for a moment that the watch was hoaxed after the diary came to light. You seem to, and you’re seeing it differently.
I'm just asking if people can point to the features of the micrographs that they think demonstrate that the "repair marks" were made after the "Maybrick marks".
I'm not saying the micrographs make me think the opposite, just that I think they are quite hard to interpret.
And I'm still trying to work out why Caroline Morris is so determined to call one of these marks "H 9 3" rather than "H 9/3" as Turgoose refers to it. It doesn't seem as though she has much faith in Turgoose's ability to get "the basic stuff" right.
Come to think of it, I see you also call it "H93". Am I missing something?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
I wrote:
“Secondly, it could have been the "repair marks" themselves that Murphy was trying to polish out.”
Paul Butler replied:
Why on Earth would anyone in their right mind try to do this?
90% of all old English watches have these marks. The Maybrick watch is no exception. They are part of the history of the item and their presence will have no effect on the desirability or value of the watch.
Well, of course, my suggestion was very hypothetical - if Turgoose was wrong about the priority of the markings.
But in that case, Murphy said that, whatever scratches he was trying to polish out, he couldn't read them (so that in particular he couldn't be sure whether they were the Maybrick markings or not).
If that's so, he wouldn't have known that this was a "good" scratch that added character, rather than a "bad" scratch that he should try to get rid of.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 83
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert.
Yes it has been asked before, but as it's such a sensible and relevant question I’m happy to repeat the answer. We covered this about a year back if I recall correctly if you fancy a look, but in a nutshell it goes like this.
When a jeweller has a watch in for repair he needs some method of identifying it, not only to ensure it goes to the right person once the repairs are complete, but also to be able to identify quickly any watch that has been through his hands before. This will prevent people claiming things such as “You repaired this watch last year and it’s broken again”. The practice dates back centuries, and to a time when the guilds made it compulsory for London workers to identify themselves clearly on their work so as to prevent shoddy workmanship from being carried out in the capital. This practice spread throughout the UK.
You only need to look at a sample selection of old watches to find out that the practice of putting a cryptic initial here and a letter there was very widespread indeed. These marks seem to have never been thought of as disfiguring. They are invariably tiny and neatly done as is the case with our watch. In fact they are the only “scratches” in our watch which are neatly done. The rest are a complete mess which I fully accept any sensible jeweller would try to polish out if he saw them. The practice of scratching numbers into the inner backs of watches, particularly antique ones has now all but died out.
A good place to see examples of this practice, if you can’t get your hands on plenty of examples in the flesh as I can, is simply to type “Pocket watch” into e bay UK’s search engine. I found several very good examples illustrated that way.
Hello Chris.
Don’t get me wrong, I can see what you’re getting at. It becomes essential to try and discredit Turgoose if there is to be any chance of keeping the hopes of a modern “post diary” faked watch alive.
What I really can’t get my head around is your suggestion that Turgoose is prepared to put a comment like….. "The horizontal marking, which is not apparent on the Photograph 1, is part of the large 'J'. This, and particularly the expanded view in Micrograph 3, show that the '9/3' was written after the horizontal line"….and then illustrate it with a photograph that shows precisely the opposite! He does this not once, but several times? Is he trying to take us all for complete fools?
To accept that Turgoose got it wrong would mean accepting that he not only got it completely and utterly wrong, but most significantly, that he got it so consistently wrong.
I’m sorry Chris, but I read plenty on this and other threads about probability against possibility, (and I agree with a lot of it too). So can I pose one simple question? What is the probability that Turgoose looked at the scratches under his SEN and got it all so comprehensively and consistently wrong?
Regards to all.
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
I am not convinced that Paul does indeed "see what [Chris] is getting at." Certainly, the sentence that follows this sentence in his post indicates that he does not.
Also, since he didn't offer a response, I'll ask him the question again.
Paul,
"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?"
Still curious,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Paul
Did you not read my last two posts at all?
I said:
I'm just asking if people can point to the features of the micrographs that they think demonstrate that the "repair marks" were made after the "Maybrick marks".
I'm not saying the micrographs make me think the opposite, just that I think they are quite hard to interpret.
[emphasis added]
I'll ask again - can you see these features yourself, or are you just trusting Turgoose's word?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
You seem to have misunderstood why I wrote that it is clearly an impossibility for Dundas to have been asked about ripper related marks just a month or so after he had serviced the watch in early 1992.
What I meant was that it was clearly impossible for Murphy to have been asking Dundas specific questions about ripper related marks before Albert had even bought the watch, and more than a year before Albert and co found the marks and deciphered them - unless you think Murphy knew about them before July 1992, which would rather drop him in it as the modern hoaxer, and would at least date the marks to before Albert came into possession.
In short, Dundas didn’t appear to know a month from a year.
But when the argument is as circular as John’s, it makes little difference if you could ride a coach and horses through the holes in Dundas’s sworn testimony. The diary is obviously a modern hoax; ergo the watch is a bandwagon hoax; ergo there could have been no ripper related marks in the watch when Dundas serviced it in 1992; ergo Dundas was spot on about this, despite getting into a right mucking fuddle with his timing; ergo the watch was hoaxed in 1993.
Perfect. One wonders why Chris P et al still feel the need to keep wheeling Dundas out, since they evidently didn’t need to rely on him as a good witness in the first place.
Hi Chris P,
Could you remind me where:
Murphy said that, whatever scratches he was trying to polish out, he couldn't read them (so that in particular he couldn't be sure whether they were the Maybrick markings or not).
Murphy told Shirley that he tried to clean the scratches, but didn’t realise what they were because they were so faint. It doesn’t follow that he necessarily tried to read them. But by saying that he couldn’t read them, the implication is that he did try - a subtle distinction, maybe, but a distinction none the less.
The H 9/3 and 1275, if present when he was tarting up the watch for sale, would seem to have been in a different category - easier to see and read, but nothing out of the ordinary to report, and nothing particularly memorable. I have trouble with any suggestion that Murphy saw these and wouldn’t have realised what these were because they were too faint. I suspect he would have assumed them to be perfectly normal markings in no need of special attention.
Murphy also said that Dundas was only asked to repair the movement, not to clean the watch, and that he would not have needed to look inside the back at all. Murphy believed that Dundas would not have noticed the scratches anyway, since they were so faint - which at least corresponds with my own experience. I knew they were there, exactly what they were, and where each ripper related mark was supposed to be, on the surface in question, and still I couldn’t see them, even with Val holding the watch and a magnifying glass for me.
Hi John,
And I love the fact that Paul feels free to choose one first-hand testimony (Turgoose's) and ignore another (Dundas's), even though they seem to conflict and even though the former announced itself as finally speculative at best and the latter says within a sworn affidavit that "The only markings on this watch at that time were repair markings."
Perhaps you should set a better example then, by not feeling free to promote one person’s testimony as reliable, simply because it appears to confirm your own beliefs, while playing down, disputing, or completely writing off anyone’s testimony that just happens to conflict with them.
Love,
Caz
X
PS No one got any comments regarding what Dr Wild meant by having to compare the watch with several standards known to have been kept in similar conditions (when the whole point is we don't know what conditions Albert's watch was subjected to, either naturally, or by a hoaxer artificially ageing it, and if we did know we wouldn't perhaps be calling for further tests)?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1918
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Caz,
re your comment to John.
but isn't that exactly what you are doing?!
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Of course it is, Jenni.
Caroline writes a sentence that begins:
"But when the argument is as circular as John’s..."
And then proceeds to construct a series of words that I do not recognize and that in no way represent anything like what my argument is now or ever has been.
So that paragraph can be blissfully ignored as irrelevant.
Mr. Dundas swears: "The only markings on this watch at that time were repair markings."
and says, "the marks on the watch relating to 'Jack The Ripper' have been made on the watch since I examined and repaired it in 1992, the whole suggestion that this watch belonged to 'Jack The Ripper' is completely false."
This clearly conflicts with what Paul B. is saying about how he reads Turgoose's conclusions. My pointing out that he was ignoring one set of conclusions even as he granted the other definitive status (claiming they rendered a modern hoax "impossible") was simply a reading note.
I am arguing that the two conclusions appear to be in some direct or indirect conflict (further complicated, as Chris has demonstrated, by uncertainty over what the micrographs actually show) and therefore no scientific conclusions can be logically drawn in any real or meaningful way until thorough testing is done, until the work that the watch reports themselves calls for is finally undertaken, and until we have more than just self-admitted speculative and preliminary findings and observational testimony.
It's been ten years, people.
Amazing.
--John
PS: Caroline writes, "Murphy believed that Dundas would not have noticed the scratches anyway, since they were so faint - which at least corresponds with my own experience. I knew they were there, exactly what they were, and where each ripper related mark was supposed to be, on the surface in question, and still I couldn’t see them, even with Val holding the watch and a magnifying glass for me."
Gee. That sort of puts Paul Butler's recent claim that the marks could have been made using only the naked eye into a bit of doubt, doesn't it?
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
But what are my beliefs? I look at everyone's testimony and ask questions about it. I neither accept it nor reject it. But I am entitled to point out where someone makes undeniable errors.
Dundas made undeniable errors. I have succeeded in identifying them.
John and Chris are hoping that Dr Turgoose made errors too, concerning the order in which the scratches were made. John now takes the word 'speculative' and uses it to beat the hell out of the rest of Turgoose's work. He has yet to succeed.
John's excuse is that he can't really know the order in which the scratches were made until 'thorough testing is done'. But if he doesn't trust Turgoose's eyes and equipment, whose would he be prepared to trust, and why?
Hi John,
Gee. That sort of puts Paul Butler's recent claim that the marks could have been made using only the naked eye into a bit of doubt, doesn't it?
Nope, I've read this over and over and I don't understand what you mean. Isn't your hoaxer supposed to have gone through a complex process of artificial wearing and polishing, to achieve a suitably old and realistically faint appearance, that succeeded in fooling the experts into thinking the marks were made many decades previously?
The naked eye from many decades ago would have been fine for producing what Turgoose saw in 1993. Only if the marks had been made just weeks before might the naked eye have needed help - the old circular argument again.
It's no good denying it John. You have asserted that the diary speaks for itself as a modern hoax. You have asserted that the timing of the appearance of the watch makes it a certainty that this is also a modern hoax. You have therefore logically bound yourself to accept what Dundas said about the marks not being there in 1992. Yet you are now using the fact that Dundas made a 'sworn' statement, to argue for his reliability as a witness, which in turn confirms your modern hoax theory.
If that isn't almost the perfect circle, my geometry lessons were a waste of time.
And isn't it a wee bit selective, when you can't trust a single sworn statement coming from a certain other direction, not a million miles away from libraryville?
Love,
Caz
X
PS Still no idea, John - anyone - what Dr Wild meant by his requirement to get the watch compared with several standards known to have been kept in similar conditions? Or is the answer so simple you don't even have to enunciate it for me?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1924
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
Caz,
it's seems pretty clear you believe Turgoose must be right.
How can you say Dundas made undeniable errors, that is just wrong. He swore on an affidavit for crying out loud!
Chris and John aren't hoping anything, well at least that's not the impression that I get from them. They are just tryting to understand the meaning of the reports, as we all are.
really, you are once again misprepresenting what the guys are saying, but then again you know this.
sometimes i just don't understand!
buzz buzz!
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1925
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:53 am: |
|
If you want to know what Dr Wild meant you should ask him.
no wait he should have been asked at the time.
how do you expect us to know what he meant?
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 724
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Still no idea, John - anyone - what Dr Wild meant by his requirement to get the watch compared with several standards known to have been kept in similar conditions? Or is the answer so simple you don't even have to enunciate it for me?
I think the answer is pretty straightforward, but I'm afraid I'm not willing to carry on playing this game where you endlessly ask questions of others, without ever being willing to answer any yourself.
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.
|
|
|
|
