|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 8:51 am: | 
|
Caroline Morris
By the way, in case you missed it Chris, I already explained that I don't feel qualified to interpret the micrographs and ascertain whether they appear to support Turgoose's written observations; don't appear to support them; or don't help one way or another.
Yes, I do remember you saying that.
But before the reports were published, when we questioned Turgoose's finding, you kept telling us it was going to be really obvious what order the marks were made in.
You told us it wouldn't require any expert knowledge to interpret the evidence - it would be as simple as a "beach bum" telling which marks in the sand were made first.
Months later, we discover that when you wrote this, you hadn't even seen the micrographs in question! And now that you have, you've suddenly come over all humble, and not "qualified" to say anything further on the matter.
In the circumstances, maybe clarifying whether your previous claims were valid should form part of your "ongoing investigations".
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 30, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Caroline,
I don't know why.
Perhaps it's for the same reason that i don't know why it is acceptable to use playground taunts?
Hi Chris,
hope you are well? I have emailed you.
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Obviously, you now know that I was referring to Dr Turgoose's written observations alone, which I didn't (and still don't) think require any expert knowledge to interpret, when it comes to the reported order of the scratches.
It was an incorrect assumption on your part that led you to believe I was sitting there with the micrographs, making dubious claims about the evidence, when I was simply claiming that the text of the report made it crystal clear what Turgoose observed about the order.
If you want to dispute that claim, go ahead.
If not, stop whingeing and ask Turgoose if he will interpret the micrographs for you and if he can confirm that he wasn't seeing things.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 927
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
stop whingeing
Please just stop and think about what you are writing occasionally. Do you really equate questioning the evidence with "whingeing" now?
Is this the same Caroline Morris who has so often told us hat ther role on these boards (now that she pretends not to have any opinions, anyway) is ... questioning the evidence?
It was an incorrect assumption on your part that led you to believe I was sitting there with the micrographs, making dubious claims about the evidence, when I was simply claiming that the text of the report made it crystal clear what Turgoose observed about the order.
Well, considering that you said that it was as obvious as working out which lines on the sand were made first, what on earth did you intend anyone to understand by it?
Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that you were comparing reading Turgoose's report with interpreting lines in the sand??
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on May 02, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I thought it was obvious I meant whingeing at me about what I kept telling you, and what I had seen, and what I hadn't seen, and - in fact your whole post was a whinge about my previous observations, which actually concerned a written report that I felt reasonably ok about interpreting, and didn't concern the micrographs, which I have never claimed to be ok at interpreting.
And both are now available anyway through my own efforts, and have been for some considerable time. So my early observations became redundant at that point, and I really don't see how much more mileage you can get out of whingeing about them.
What Dr Turgoose observed under high levels of magnification must have been as obvious to him as lines on sand, otherwise he wouldn't have written what he wrote, unless you are not only questioning his evidence now, but the guy's integrity as well.
It was someone else who explained to me that it would be like looking at lines on sand, followed by others who said exactly the same - none of whom, like me, had seen the micrographs at the time. If you're claiming I lied about not seeing the micrographs until the day I posted them off to Stephen so everyone would be able to see them, you must be getting beyond desperate.
If you want to question the evidence in the reports, that Albert and I and Stephen made freely available to you, you are free to do so.
But I don't see how whingeing about me, and trying to find more problems with my posts, is helping you.
Something else that won't help you much is your determination to rubbish the unwelcome opinions of Turgoose, Wild and Voller, not just by questioning their evidence, but with unfunny snippets like this, taken from another thread where you thought it could do less harm:
And I admit that Mrs Enid Strobes of the Basildon Needlewomen's Circle has given it as her "expert opinion" that the stitching together of the rags "certainly" indicates that the artefact is "at least a number of several tens of decades old".
There's questioning the evidence and there's rummaging around in the gutter, clutching at straws.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
What Dr Turgoose observed under high levels of magnification must have been as obvious to him as lines on sand, otherwise he wouldn't have written what he wrote, unless you are not only questioning his evidence now, but the guy's integrity as well.
Ridiculous.
No one is infallible. Questioning the correctness of a scientist's interpretation of their observations is nothing to do with questioning integrity.
If you're claiming I lied about not seeing the micrographs until the day I posted them off to Stephen so everyone would be able to see them, you must be getting beyond desperate.
You know perfectly well I made no such claim.
What I have pointed out is that you made all sorts of comments about how "obvious" the order of the marks would be, when you had absolutely no basis for doing so.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I didn't claim Dr Turgoose must have been right; I said it must have been obvious to him, just like you say it's obvious to you that the scratches are modern, because it's obvious to you that the diary is modern, even though you say there can be no absolute proof based on textual or scientific evidence.
Turgoose believed he could tell which scratches crossed over which. It was obvious to him because of what he wrote about the order in the report. It's fine with me - really it is - if you want to question his ability to assess the order correctly. But I can't help you with your questions, can I?
I wrote: If you're claiming I lied... because the implication was there in your words:
Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that you were comparing reading Turgoose's report with interpreting lines in the sand??
And yes, I do expect you to believe that it was from Turgoose's written observations about scratches crossing each other (and not from the micrographs because I hadn't yet seen them)that the first remark about lines in the sand came about - because that's what happened.
But questioning the messenger, and trying to discredit her, is not questioning the evidence, and makes it look like you've got no sense of direction. If you want to get somewhere, you jump in the car and start it, you don't jump on the bloke who delivered it and didn't even expect a tip.
Now let's have a real laugh, with something approaching the truth:
And we admit that, because former scrap metal merchant, Honest Mike, of the Anfield Amateur Creative Writers' Circle, has given it as his solemn word that the writing in the diary is in his own fair hand, it saves us the trouble of looking elsewhere for the author, not to mention it would be churlish to doubt his word.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Anyway,
it seems like maybe we have our wires crossed here a little.
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Furthermore I would just point out that this has nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 937
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
I wrote: If you're claiming I lied... because the implication was there in your words
What you actually wrote was this:
If you're claiming I lied about not seeing the micrographs until the day I posted them off to Stephen ...
That is not what I am suggesting at all.
I am suggesting that what you said would be "obvious" was the interpretation of the scratches, not the interpretation of Turgoose's words.
And that what you were comparing with looking at lines in the sand was looking at the scratches, not looking at Turgoose's report.
It's no use your pretending otherwise.
I have no difficulty believing that you didn't have the micrographs in front of you when you wrote that. After all, now that you do, you can see it is anything but "obvious".
No doubt you were foolish to write what you did, not knowing whether it was true or not. No doubt, as usual, you were just trying to win an argument, not caring whether it would turn out to be true or not. Sadly, I have no difficulty believing any of that, either.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on May 04, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
So do you not think that what Turgoose was looking at (as evidenced by his words) could reasonably be described as similar to looking at lines made by a finger in sand?
I don't regard that as a 'foolish' notion at all, and I don't understand why you have such a huge problem with it. How would you have described it better? How do you think Turgoose decided which scratch crossed which, if it was nothing remotely like being able to tell which line in the sand was made first?
If you are not interested in winning arguments, will you now prove it by questioning the evidence with the one person who can help you decipher it - Dr Turgoose?
We'll see.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Does Dr Turgoose still work for the Corrosion Centre at Manchester University? |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 939
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
So do you not think that what Turgoose was looking at (as evidenced by his words) could reasonably be described as similar to looking at lines made by a finger in sand?
No, of course it isn't necessarily like marks in sand. Gold is a metal, sand is granular.
But you've already told us it's just like lines in the sand, so you've presumably thought out all the similarities and the differences, weighed them carefully, and concluded that gold is like sand in this respect.
Of course I realise you are trying to set a trap for me because John Hacker posted the sand analogy. So you're looking forward to posting something along the lies of "Chris is attacking John Hacker".
The point is that I'm quite sure John would be open to a reasonable discussion about the extent to which gold is like sand, versus the extent to which it is like an extremely hard substance that can be scraped away without deformation.
I honestly think it's a shame that you're not open to that sort of discussion, because I'm sure that you have the necessary intelligence and perceptiveness, and there could probably be a quite useful discussion about this, rather than the completely pointless sort of discussion we normally have.
If you are not interested in winning arguments, will you now prove it by questioning the evidence with the one person who can help you decipher it - Dr Turgoose?
I don't care about "proving" anything, I'm quite busy with other things at the moment, and on top of this I'm not the one who has repeatedly claimed the Maybrick scratches were made before the so-called "repair marks".
And to be honest, the more of the discussion I read here, the less I want to waste time debating these questions, because it's fairly obvious that whatever evidence is presented to you, you'll find a way of reconciling it with the possibility of an "old hoax", or even with the possibility of genuineness.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 6:05 am: |
|
Actually Chris, I'd forgotten that John Hacker used the sand analogy. I had Paul Butler in mind, and a couple of people who said it to me away from the boards, who have no particular interest in the watch or the ripper. But no matter.
I'm not the one who has repeatedly claimed the Maybrick scratches were made before the so-called "repair marks".
Why do I have to repeatedly remind you that I am not claiming Turgoose was right.
But he did make this claim, and this is clear from his written observations. You are the one who has been questioning his observations from day one, when I first quoted some of them, long before the text was posted, confirming his observations, and even longer before the whole report plus micrographs appeared.
So you have wasted an incredible amount of time debating with me when you could simply have asked Turgoose to address your concerns.
And to be honest... (Aren't you normally being honest then?)
...it's fairly obvious that whatever evidence is presented to you, you'll find a way of reconciling it with the possibility of an "old hoax", or even with the possibility of genuineness.
Funny that. The evidence presented to us here is that the Maybrick marks were made before the 'repair' marks, and you are the one who is trying to find a way of reconciling this with your modern hoax beliefs.
The evidence presented to us here is that, in the opinions of both Dr Turgoose and Dr Wild, the scratches are at least several tens of decades old, given certain qualifications, and you are trying to find a way, using those qualifications, of reconciling these opinions with your belief that the scratches were in fact considerably less than one year old.
How can you honestly fail to see the irony of what you wrote about my efforts to reconcile unwelcome evidence?
I didn't know my flabber could get any more gasted. So well done.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 941
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 7:02 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Why do I have to repeatedly remind you that I am not claiming Turgoose was right.
The point is that you have stated (repeatedly) that the Maybrick scratches were made before the so-called "repair marks". You've stated this as fact, not opinion.
It's your statement, not mine, and of course it's up to you, not me, to back it up or withdraw it.
The evidence presented to us here is that, in the opinions of both Dr Turgoose and Dr Wild, the scratches are at least several tens of decades old, given certain qualifications
[my emphasis]
"Evidence"?
Who would guess from this that Turgoose's "certain qualifications" were explicit statements that the scratches could have been made recently, and that his estimate of their age depended on the cleaning regime? In other words, it would be entirely invalidated if an attempt were made to age the surface artificially. Has this last message really not penetrated yet?
And you have been consistently unable to say not only what Wild's estimate was based on, but which of his observations could conceivably have enabled him to estimate the age of the scratches.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
The point is that you have stated (repeatedly) that the Maybrick scratches were made before the so-called "repair marks". You've stated this as fact, not opinion.
I'm willing to take your word for it, but I thought I had made it perfectly clear from my first words on the subject that I could have misinterpreted Dr Turgoose's words, and later, when the reports appeared, with all his written observations, that we were all free to decide whether or not he was likely to have made a pig's ear of the order, and that I had merely been the ignorant messenger.
If I ever stated that the order was an established fact (and I don't recall doing so), I would have thought even you could work out that my telling you again now that:
I am not claiming Turgoose was right
means there is nothing currently to back up or withdraw, if there ever was.
Whether you like it or not, neither Dr Turgoose nor Dr Wild concluded that the scratches were, in their opinion, likely to be no more than weeks old, depending on anything.
They had no need to come up with any estimate of age at all, but they did.
I am not qualified to guess whether their estimate was way out, or spot on. Why do you think otherwise?
I just think that since you are the one questioning their evidence (presumably because it doesn't support your own beliefs as strongly as you would like), you really will have to direct those questions to someone who actually claims to be qualified to address them.
You're flogging a dead horse by asking me - if you ask me.
And I'm ready for my nosebag, so cheerio for now. 
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 07, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Chris,
As Caroline has just written concerning her own position:
"I am not qualified to guess whether their estimate was way out, or spot on."
So, in other words, she just doesn't know. And this conversation therefore ends the way all such conversations about the diary always end (before they begin again).
Meanwhile, what we do know is that the results remain self-admittedly incomplete and speculative and that the experts told us over ten years ago that more scientific work needed to be done before any definitive conclusion could be reached.
Well, here we are a decade later and that work has not even begun, let alone been finished.
So there's nothing more to say, really, except that we don't know when the watch was faked. But we do know when the diary appeared and what its text tells us, and we do know that it lacks any provenance whatsoever, and we do know when it was first mentioned in public. And finally, of course, we do know when the watch appeared.
I suppose someone could try writing to the watch owner asking politely about the plans to have the thing thoroughly tested....
Nah, never mind.
Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt,
--John |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page