Testing The Watch

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post Archive through February 25, 2004 John Hacker 25  1  2-25-04  10:10 am Archive through February 26, 2004 Christopher T George 25  1  2-26-04  1:18 pm Archive through February 28, 2004 Anthony Dee 25  1  2-28-04  7:19 am Archive through March 01, 2004 R.J. Palmer 25  1  3-01-04  11:32 pm Archive through March 05, 2004 Paul Stephen 25  1  3-05-04  7:11 am Archive through March 09, 2004 Chris Phillips 25  1  3-09-04  2:51 am Archive through March 11, 2004 Caroline Anne Morris 25  1  3-11-04  7:31 am Archive through March 17, 2004 Chris Phillips 25  1  3-17-04  8:09 am Archive through March 19, 2004 R.J. Palmer 25  1  3-19-04  11:38 am Archive through March 22, 2004 Paul Butler 25  1  3-22-04  6:07 am Archive through March 27, 2004 R.J. Palmer 25  1  3-27-04  10:26 am Archive through April 02, 2004 Caroline Anne Morris 25  1  4-02-04  10:54 am Archive through June 18, 2004 Chris Phillips 50  1  6-18-04  4:03 pm Archive through July 06, 2004 Jennifer D. Pegg 50  1  7-06-04  8:57 am Archive through November 23, 2004 Jennifer D. Pegg 50  1  11-23-04  9:40 am Archive through January 15, 2005 Sir Robert Anderson 50  1  1-15-05  12:45 pm Archive through January 19, 2005 Ally 50  1  1-19-05  4:41 pm Archive through February 02, 2005 Chris Phillips 50  1  2-02-05  12:16 pm Archive through February 06, 2005 Jennifer D. Pegg 50  1  2-06-05  7:33 am Archive through February 17, 2005 Chris Phillips 50  1  2-17-05  6:09 am   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   John V. Omlor Assistant Commissioner Username: Omlor Post Number: 1188 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:52 am:        First let me say this. Caroline Morris actually wrote: "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?" I am stunned. To come here and compare Mr. Dundas, who no one has ever said had any particular reason to lie or was in any way deliberately deceitful or had anything at all to gain from this whole mess, to compare him to Mike Barrett in terms of his trustworthiness and character is just outrageous. I might have expected it from Paul Feldman, who demonstrates a penchant for such crass and ugly accusations in his book. But I must say even I am surprised to find this sort of casual comparison thrown around here by Caroline. It's truly unfortunate. Now then, once again she constructs a logical argument I do not recognize and then tries to pin it on me. I am certainly not logically bound to accept any piece of testimony whatsoever from anyone or to throw away any. What I have said is simply that Mr. Dundas's sworn testimony and Paul Butler's reading of the Turgoose report seem to be in direct conflict. In fact, here again is exactly what I said, quoted verbatim in case anyone has any doubts. And nowhere in this passage that I can find do I bind myself to any particular interpretation of either testimony. Read for yourself: "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." I hope that is clear the second time. Now if anyone wants to suggest these two readings (the Dundas affidavit and Butler's interpretation of Turgoose) are NOT in conflict, I'll be happy to respond. But if they are just going to have me saying something completely different than this, I'm afraid can't defend an argument I have never made. Once again the actual words on the page seem to be less important for some than their own desire, --John   Caroline Anne Morris Assistant Commissioner Username: Caz Post Number: 1501 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 7:07 am:        Hi Jenni, You must have missed whole chunks of the recent postings, if you honestly don’t know by now that Dundas made undeniable errors in his sworn statement. And despite what John implies, I didn’t suggest that Dundas lied - I actually suggested that he got his timing wrong, thinking that “Mr Stewart” [sic] contacted him a month or so after the servicing, when it was Mr Murphy, and he didn’t contact him until more than a year had passed. Why do I have to point this out again and again, and still you don’t get it? Dundas got his timing so wrong that I wonder why anyone would choose to rely on the rest of his testimony - unless they do so wholly and exclusively because of their certainty that the marks were not made until 1993. John is, predictably, making something out of my mention of Mike’s sworn statements, when I merely question why the fact that someone - anyone - has made a sworn statement should put their account of events beyond question. We know, from experience, that sworn statements are not always reliable. I simply pointed to the worst case scenario of our very own Mike Barrett to illustrate the point. We also know that Dundas failed to distinguish between a month and a year. If you want to know what Dr Wild meant you should ask him. I don’t know where this came from, since we are currently discussing Chris P’s doubts about Dr Turgoose’s observations. The meaning of these is clear: Turgoose describes the ‘J’ of ‘I am Jack’ as having been scratched before the H 9/3 and 1275. Chris is suggesting that because the micrographs, as they appear on the Casebook, are hard to interpret, Turgoose could have got the order the wrong way round. Hi Chris P, You thought I was the devil incarnate when I challenged Dangar’s opinion on the gender of Albert’s watch (on the grounds that my reference books on the subject contained documented and photographic evidence which was completely at odds with Dangar’s opinion). You also think I’m the devil incarnate because I’m not prepared to take Dundas’s word for it that the ripper related marks were not in Albert’s watch in 1992 (partly on the grounds that Dundas made a whopping great error in his sworn statement). And now I’m the devil incarnate yet again for not challenging Turgoose’s professional observations regarding the order of the marks. So what are your principles concerning accepting or challenging the testimony of a witness or expert? You appear to think it is only reasonable to accept someone’s word when you are the one doing the accepting, and only reasonable to challenge someone’s word when you are the one doing the challenging. I actually think questioning is a very healthy exercise in general. So I would never condemn you for questioning Dr Turgoose’s observations. But what are your general principles regarding the grounds for a challenge? Is it up to the challenger to show that their grounds are reasonable? Or is it up to others to prove they are not? And does this depend on who is doing the challenging? Or do you not need any grounds at all, apart from the fact that it would fit the modern hoax scenario that much better if ‘I am Jack’ was actually scratched over the H 9/3 and 1275 and Turgoose just got it wrong? Hi John, You wrote: I am certainly not logically bound to accept any piece of testimony whatsoever from anyone or to throw away any. I’m very glad, but somewhat surprised, to hear it. Anyone reading your daily doses of modern hoax speak up until now could have been forgiven for thinking your beliefs were so rock solid that you were incapable of questioning any testimony that appeared to support them, or of considering any testimony that didn’t. Love, Caz X   Chris Phillips Chief Inspector Username: Cgp100 Post Number: 736 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 7:29 am:        Caroline Morris Your latest post contains about half a dozen misrepresentations of what I've said. In several cases, I've had to correct these misleading statements several times already. You may consider you're just playing a game, but I'm not happy to come here day after day, and find myself accused of "suggesting" this, "believing" that, or "challenging" the other - let alone this hysterical rubbish about my "believing you're the devil incarnate" (!) - when I've done no such thing. I am happy to discuss these things with sensible people, whatever their opinions. But in the circumstances, it's clearly pointless to try to have a sensible discussion with you. Chris Phillips (Message edited by cgp100 on February 21, 2005)   John V. Omlor Assistant Commissioner Username: Omlor Post Number: 1206 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 8:31 am:        Once again, for the record, to compare Mr. Dundas and his position and his sworn statement to that of Mike Barrett, even for the purpose of "illustration," is not only completely misleading but stunningly callous and insulting. The two men are completely different and their situations were completely different and should in no way be considered as in any way comparable. The fact that Caroline feels she has to do this here should indicate to all attentive readers the precise rhetorical nature and quality of her argument. I think this sort of thing is truly shameful, and I want no part of this particular avenue of discussion anymore. My position has always been clear. I have said that Mr. Dundas's sworn testimony seems to conflict directly with Paul Butler's reading of Dr. Turgoose's report. Neither Caroline nor anyone has has demonstrated otherwise. Therefore, since there is no way to resolve this apparent conflict with the written material already available, our only hope is to provide some qualified expert with full access to the watch for complete and thorough testing in order to try and acquire objective data and thereby determine which testimony is correct. Otherwise, the personal interpretations here of other people's self-admitted speculative and preliminary findings and sworn observational testimony will never be anything but problematic. --John   Jennifer D. Pegg Assistant Commissioner Username: Jdpegg Post Number: 1983 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:04 am:        Hi Caz, thanks a lot for that. Jenni "Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"   Caroline Anne Morris Assistant Commissioner Username: Caz Post Number: 1504 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 6:22 am:        Hi John, The two men are completely different. Neither of us has ever met Dundas. Neither of us knows the first thing about him, apart from the fact that he serviced watches in 1992 and made a significant mistake in a sworn statement. We must presume him to be an honest witness, giving his testimony to the best of his beliefs or knowledge. For the above reasons, I couldn't possibly be comparing Dundas with Mike. And you know it as well as I do. You are the only person around here making a comparison between the two men, by stating that they are completely different, as if they are old buddies of yours and you have been asked to give character references for them both. You know that I was illustrating for Jenni, in the clearest way possible, why no sworn statement guarantees the accuracy of the information it contains - it is only as infallible as the human being making the statement. I see Chris P is unwilling to state for the record what his principles are regarding who is entitled to question whose word or opinions, and on what grounds. I merely asked because he was so uptight with me for not simply accepting the word of Dangar and Dundas (when I have supplied perfectly reasonable grounds for not doing so), and yet he asked Paul only last week if he was just 'trusting' Turgoose's word, as if he thought this was a bad thing for anyone but himself to do. He also wrote: 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 It now appears he wasn't being serious, because he is backtracking furiously from any suggestion that it made good sense to base a scenario on Turgoose being wrong about the order of the marks. Chris is also blaming me for his reluctance to discuss whether the further testing as recommended by Dr Wild is even possible. That's fine by me, as is your own reticence on the subject. But assuming Chris has no quarrel with you or anyone else, he should be willing to email you with his 'pretty straightforward' answer. Since your claim, that 'our only hope is to provide some qualified expert with full access to the watch for complete and thorough testing...', springs from Dr Wild's recommendation, you will want to ascertain how his advice will apply in practice, since the conditions in which the watch had been kept before being examined are unknown. Wild specified that several standards known to have been kept in similar conditions would be needed for comparison purposes. If known has to be modified to assumed, even before the process begins, I am sure you can imagine the consequences for any test results, assuming a scientist would still recommend going ahead on this basis. Who is going to accept the results, if we can all simply shrug and say the assumption about the conditions the watch was kept in could have been wrong? I'm struggling with this, but Wild's testing recommendation is very much your baby: you struggle with it - or risk throwing the testing baby out with your testing bathwater. Love, Caz X   Chris Phillips Chief Inspector Username: Cgp100 Post Number: 738 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 6:43 am:        Caroline Morris In case you missed it, I wrote: I am happy to discuss these things with sensible people, whatever their opinions. But in the circumstances, it's clearly pointless to try to have a sensible discussion with you. Chris Phillips   John V. Omlor Assistant Commissioner Username: Omlor Post Number: 1208 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 7:29 am:        Caroline now seeks to retreat via denial by claiming, "I couldn't possibly be comparing Dundas with Mike." But fortunately, the posts on this website don't immediately vanish. In a post just few a short clicks above Caroline writes that I was "using the fact that Dundas made a 'sworn' statement, to argue for his reliability as a witness." And then asks me,"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?" The first remark refers to the testimony of Mr. Dundas. The second remark refers to the testimony of Mike Barrett. And that's that. The suggestion that I would have no more reason to trust Mr. Dundas and his statement than I would a character like Mike Barrett is clear here, and I want nothing to do with such unfortunate Feldman-like incriminations. Something's happening around here lately, and its not just our usual intramural unpleasantness. It smells like desperation. The old hoax theory does not exist. No one around here claims that either of these things are authentic. The modern hoax theory, laid out in detail on the dissertations pages of the Casebook by Melvin Harris, is thorough and accounts neatly for all the difficulties in the diary. And it now seems Caroline has nothing left to discuss. It is perfectly and demonstrably and undeniably clear that Mr. Dundas's sworn testimony and Paul's reading of Turgoose are in direct and unresolvable conflict. And there are no signs that the work necessary to acquire the data that could deal with that conflict is about to be done anytime soon (or ever). This all seems to be at an end, unless something actually happens -- unless someone actually bothers to present a detailed case for an old hoax with all the scenarios and evidence and facts or unless someone actually does the right thing and has their watch and their diary thoroughly and properly tested at last. I wouldn't hold your breath for either of these possibilities. So the discussion seems pretty well dead. And looking at the consequent turn in Caroline's prose, I think that might be a good thing. --John   Jennifer D. Pegg Assistant Commissioner Username: Jdpegg Post Number: 1988 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 8:28 am:        i think i give up! Jenni ps is that five words - it is now! "Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"   Chris Phillips Chief Inspector Username: Cgp100 Post Number: 739 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 9:03 am:        Going back to this question of whether the "repair marks" were made before or after the "Maybrick markings". Back in the period before most people had access to the reports, Caroline Morris seems to have been in no doubt that the priority of these marks would have been obvious, and that it wouldn't need an expert to judge which came first: Two lines drawn in sand with a finger cross each other. Wouldn't even the dullest beach bum be able to tell which was drawn first? [19 March 2004] Now when I ask if anyone can actually indicate the features in the micrographs that suggest the "repair marks" were made last, there is a deafening silence. Who would have guessed from her confident statement last March, that Caroline Morris herself was unable to see the evidence for this in the micrographs? Recently I've asked several times whether there was any significance in the fact that she has consistently referred to one of the "repair marks" as "H 9 3", rather than "H 9/3" as Turgoose has it. Ironically, one of the tactics she has used to avoid answering these questions has been feigned outrage that I was trying to demonstrate Turgoose was wrong (which I had been very clear I wasn't), or at the notion that an "expert" would get anything so basic wrong, and so on, and so forth. The reason this is ironic is that Caroline Morris herself wrote the following, nearly a year ago: It is clear from his report that magnification showed that the ‘9/3’ [sic] was ‘written’ after the horizontal line of the ‘J’ in ‘I am Jack’ because these two markings crossed. They do indeed cross, John – at least in the colour photo I have in front of me here that Keith Skinner recently sent me. There is no obvious cross bar at the top of the ‘J’, but the bottom tail goes off to the left then up and loops back on itself and ends up going back across the downstroke. The ‘9’ appears almost entirely within the resulting loop of the ‘J’, but the downstroke of the ‘9’ does cross the bottom of the ‘J’ loop almost at right angles. Also, the lower half of the vertical downstroke of the ‘J’ divides the ‘9’ and the ‘3’, and I can’t see another downstroke that would give either ‘9/3’ or ‘913’, but the gaps look too big to be ‘H 93’. It looks more like ‘H 9 3’ to me, but I could of course be wrong. [1 March 2004] In other words, Caroline Morris herself thought Turgoose was wrong about something as basic as whether that vertical mark between the '9' and the '3' was a slash - part of the "repair mark" - or whether it was actually part of the downstroke of the 'J'! And as we've seen, it was "particularly" his observation of the way the tail of the 'J' crossed this vertical mark, from which Turgoose concluded that the "9/3" was written after the 'J'. Is it too much to hope we'll hear a bit less about fingers in the sand and dull beach bums after this? (Probably ...) Chris Phillips   Paul Butler Detective Sergeant Username: Paul Post Number: 85 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 11:45 am:        Chris and all. Just to answer a couple of points………….. “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.” Easy, (and a little bit obvious really), just look at the scratches. You can hardly fail to notice that the two repair numbers are neatly, carefully and competently done. The rest of the scratches are totally the opposite. Nice neat repair marks = Good. Nasty disfiguring scrawl = Bad. Why should Murphy try to polish out something present in the majority of old watches? What was his motive? Why should he not want to polish out the untidy and amateurish looking Maybrick marks? Is this point even worth using up casebook space? I’ll be happy to start answering a few of your questions, Chris, when you do me the honour of answering mine. Just the most recent one would do for a start. What are the chances of Turgoose getting it all so consistently wrong, illustrating each of his points about the ordering of the scratches with a photograph showing completely the opposite? John Omlor goes on to write…….”My position has always been clear. I have said that Mr. Dundas's sworn testimony seems to conflict directly with Paul Butler's reading of Dr. Turgoose's report.” This is absolutely priceless! As if my reading of Turgoose’s comments regarding the order of the scratches could be read with any degree of “interpretation”. Turgoose says what he says. Yes, I accept what he says on the basis that it is highly unlikely that he intended his words to mean anything other than what he wrote. Seems a pretty sensible thing to do really. So nothing changes does it? If you want to try and make a case for the watch being a recent hoax, then the only way to do it is to try and pretend people have said things that they haven’t and come up with strange interpretations of things that are perfectly clearly stated. “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?” Well you can see ‘em with the naked eye……nuff said. Caroline has said recently…..”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, ……………………………………… I suspect he would have assumed them to be perfectly normal markings in no need of special attention.” Spot on Caz. Common sense hasn’t packed up and left after all. I really don’t follow the line of argument that anyone handling this watch back in 92 would have given any of these markings a second thought. Dundas says he saw repair marks of some sort, and this is confirmed by Murphy. Prior to the news of the diary coming to light, Maybrick’s name would have meant very little to very few people, even in Liverpool. Why the assumption that anyone at that time seeing those scratches would give them more than a second thought? regards to all, Paul   John V. Omlor Assistant Commissioner Username: Omlor Post Number: 1211 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 12:23 pm:        Paul Butler returns pretending his interpretation of the Turgoose report is the only available one, and then writes: "So nothing changes does it?" Apparently not. Good-bye for now, --John "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."   Chris Phillips Chief Inspector Username: Cgp100 Post Number: 740 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 12:55 pm:        Paul Butler What are the chances of Turgoose getting it all so consistently wrong, illustrating each of his points about the ordering of the scratches with a photograph showing completely the opposite? As I've said about half a dozen times, I'm not claiming the micrographs show the opposite to what Turgoose concluded. I'm asking if anyone can point out any features supporting his conclusion. What are the chances of his getting the order of the markings wrong? I don't know, because I know so little about Turgoose, beyond the facts that he has an M.A. and a Ph.D., and the name of the place where he works. I don't know whether he had experience in examining old scratches on gold through a microscope, or not. One thing's for sure - scientists aren't infallible. They do make mistakes. The right thing to do is to look at the evidence, and work out whether it supports the conclusions. Not look at the letters after the name, and say "This man's an expert - he must be right!". Chris Phillips   Sir Robert Anderson Inspector Username: Sirrobert Post Number: 243 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:42 pm:        "Why should Murphy try to polish out something present in the majority of old watches? " Hey Paul - I have a question, which you may very well have answered before, and if so, I apologize. Why do/did repairers make marks in repaired watches? Wouldn't this be considered a mar ? Sir Robert "I only thought I knew" SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com   Caroline Anne Morris Assistant Commissioner Username: Caz Post Number: 1509 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:12 am:        Hi Chris P, Don’t worry, I know you will refuse to discuss this further with me, but that doesn’t stop me from addressing you directly. You quoted me thus: ‘I can’t see another downstroke that would give either ‘9/3’ or ‘913’, but the gaps look too big to be ‘H 93’. It looks more like ‘H 9 3’ to me, but I could of course be wrong. ’ I was not staring at the marks with the aid of a microscope as Dr Turgoose was. I was simply describing what I could and couldn’t see in the photos - which, incidentally, is similar to what you have been saying about the clarity of the micrographs. You did indeed use ‘other words’ when you wrote: In other words, Caroline Morris herself thought Turgoose was wrong about something as basic as whether that vertical mark between the '9' and the '3' was a slash - part of the "repair mark" - or whether it was actually part of the downstroke of the 'J'! God knows how you arrived at all this from what I actually wrote. Turgoose couldn’t have made it clearer that he observed that the horizontal line of the ‘J’ in ‘I am Jack’ had been scratched before the 9/3. And that, at the end of the day, is what matters. If you want to dispute this observation, fine. But you haven't made a good case yet. You wrote to Paul Butler: What are the chances of his getting the order of the markings wrong? I don't know, because I know so little about Turgoose, beyond the facts that he has an M.A. and a Ph.D., and the name of the place where he works. I don't know whether he had experience in examining old scratches on gold through a microscope, or not. One thing's for sure - scientists aren't infallible. They do make mistakes. The right thing to do is to look at the evidence, and work out whether it supports the conclusions. Not look at the letters after the name, and say "This man's an expert - he must be right!". This is amazing. You also know precious little about Dundas, beyond the fact that he serviced watches for a living in 1992 and made a sworn statement containing a major error. You don’t know whether he had experience in examining old scratches on gold, do you? And yet you are happy to take this man’s word for it that ‘I am Jack’ was not on that surface when he serviced the watch, although he did remember seeing repair marks (plural). Dr Turgoose is the one who has examined the watch under a microscope, since the scratches were discovered by Albert and co. He is therefore better qualified than you, me or Dundas, to comment - unless or until you can demonstrate otherwise. You have never even seen the watch; I have seen it once, in Bournemouth, knowing the ripper marks were there, but still not being able to see them with an ordinary magnifying glass; and Dundas, as far as I am aware, only saw the watch when he serviced it, and has not seen it or examined the relevant surface since. Assuming Dundas has only seen the photos of the scratches, he is in a similar position to some of the commentators here, who can’t get to grips with the fact that the scratches are so hard to see ‘in the flesh’. It’s little wonder he didn’t believe he could have missed those marks had they been there in 1992! Love, Caz X (Message edited by caz on February 25, 2005)   Caroline Anne Morris Assistant Commissioner Username: Caz Post Number: 1510 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:20 am:        Hi John, And it now seems Caroline has nothing left to discuss. On the contrary, it’s you with nothing left to discuss. And Chris is making daft excuses for not responding to me, accusing me of not being sensible enough for his liking. You are still being selective I see, with your favourite quote from Dundas: "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." You ignore Dundas’s erroneous claim that he was asked about the scratches just a month or so after he had handled the watch, when in fact more than a year passed between seeing it and being asked to recall what he saw or didn’t see on the surface in question. Isn’t this intellectually dishonest of you? But interestingly you do draw attention to Dundas leaping from a claim too far to a conclusion way too far. If Dundas had been a scientist by profession, like Dr Turgoose, he would have restricted himself to stating that, to the best of his belief, the marks were not there when he serviced the watch, therefore he can only conclude that they have been made since. So immediately you see the problem with comparing the language used by a scientist for his observations and conclusions (all those we have to go on at present) with that of a layman. Caution has to be exercised before favouring the latter on the basis of it emanating from a sworn statement. And in scientist or layman speak, Dundas was no more entitled to conclude that the watch never belonged to Jack the Ripper than anyone else. He can’t claim to know who Jack the Ripper was, nor does he know who had access to the watch back in 1888. One of the crucial things left to discuss, which seems to be defeating you, is the little matter concerning that well-worn concept around here of what is ‘known’ - or more accurately, as usual, what isn’t ‘known’. Since the conditions in which Albert’s watch was kept, before being examined, are clearly not ‘known’, what does that do to your constant calls for Dr Wild’s recommendation to be implemented: ie that several standards ‘known’ to have been kept in similar conditions to the watch would need to be compared with it, in order to be more accurate about the age of the ripper engravings? I assume you are busy working out a way to overcome this apparent impediment, or to explain why it doesn’t apply. Clearly you cannot expect Albert to do what you insist is the ethical and responsible thing, and initiate new tests along the lines recommended by Dr Wild, until you have ascertained whether you may be asking Albert, and in turn science, to do the impossible. When you know either way, you may feel a second letter to Albert is appropriate. Have a great weekend all. Love, Caz X   Sir Robert Anderson Inspector Username: Sirrobert Post Number: 244 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:37 am:        "I have seen it once, in Bournemouth, knowing the ripper marks were there, but still not being able to see them with an ordinary magnifying glass;" This, to me, is one of the more intriguing angles of the case; personally, I think a hoaxer would have made the scratches a tad more visible. Actually, let me more specific: I think a hoaxer intending for their hoax to be "discovered" would have made bolder scratches. Of course, this raises another question: if you couldn't see them, despite knowing they were there, how did Albert and his buddies see them? The clot thickens... Sir Robert "I only thought I knew" SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com   John Holden Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 8:41 am:        Suppose god tested the watch and announced the exact date the initials were scratched. If it was after Maybrick’s death, testing clears him of scratching, but not of murder. If it was on or before Maybrick’s death, testing hasn’t proved him guilty of scratching or murder; ten million other people knew the initials. Even if god went on to say that his testing proved that Maybrick scratched the watch, it wouldn’t prove him guilty of murder, just of scratching. Clearly, testing scratches is about the pursuit of Jack the Scratcher not Jack the Ripper, and the watch owner would be a fool to pay for more testing, whether or not he knows the scratches to be fraudulent.   Caroline Anne Morris Assistant Commissioner Username: Caz Post Number: 1513 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 1:25 pm:        Hi Sir Robert, Well, others at Bournemouth could see the scratches - it all depends on the light falling on them just right. And the photos tend to demonstrate that in the right light they can stand out very well indeed. I just don't buy a conspiracy between Albert and his buddies; his buddies playing a trick on him somehow; or someone not at the scene of discovery being able to manipulate everything without Albert or his buddies smelling the rat. Hi John (H), Great post! If the scratches were made in 1993, I can't see how Albert would not either know or suspect this was the case. However, if, as Albert claims to believe, they were already in the watch when he bought it, his guess would be as good as anyone else's as to how long they have been there, who made them, and whether or not that person could have been the real ripper. Love, Caz X   Sir Robert Anderson Inspector Username: Sirrobert Post Number: 245 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:12 pm:        "Suppose god tested the watch " Hopefully She has better things to do..... There's really just one thing I am convinced of with respect to the Watch scratches and the Diary. Neither were created by either Maybrick nor the Ripper. Beyond that, I haven't the foggiest. Sir Robert "I only thought I knew" SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com   Caroline Anne Morris Assistant Commissioner Username: Caz Post Number: 1520 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:30 am:        Hi All, I can only assume John has not yet been able to ascertain if the comparisons recommended by Dr Wild are possible, given that the conditions the watch has been kept in, or subjected to, are unknown. Here's a puzzle: John buys a painting and later not one but two art experts tell him he may well be the proud owner of a previously unknown Monet. He doesn't make any moves to sell it; he doesn't even know if the experts are right, but he trusts their opinions. Ten years later, he still owns the painting and still has no proof that it's really a Monet. A newspaper interviews John, who comments wryly that in the end people will believe what they want to believe. Then someone appears on the internet insisting that the only ethical and responsible course of action is for John to leave no stone unturned until a definite conclusion is reached over whether or not his painting is the genuine article. Now will John's response be printable, I wonder? Love, Caz X   A Fan Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 4:57 am:        John, Caz, Chris and everyone, I have just spent an enjoyable couple of hours reading through your various arguments, thanks for the entertainment it is all quite hilarious. You spend so much time dissecting who said what to whom and making accusations and counter accusations that you spend hardly any time discussing the case in point. “You said this, you said that, no I said you said, she said she said she said.” It’s utter genius. Please never ever stop. I was wondering, could I buy the rights to make a cartoon of you all? I see it done very much in the old fashioned style, silent except for the tune “The Entertainer” and inter cut with those full screen subtitles (if that isn’t an oxymoron) of some of your more hilarious, never actually getting to the point arguments. Keep up the good work.   Caroline Anne Morris Assistant Commissioner Username: Caz Post Number: 1531 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 4:31 am:        Sounds a hoot, A Fan. I know these threads can look very much like a Wild Turgoose chase, but what point would you have me get to, that I have thus far failed to reach with the aid of the watch reports? Love, Caz, suffering Disney spells X   Paul Butler Detective Sergeant Username: Paul Post Number: 86 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 11:30 am:        Well Hi there A fan. When it all gets too silly I usually just shut up for a bit! Perhaps I can be the first to break the pregnant pause then? Hi also to all those still reading this thread. Both of you? A few more thoughts then around the ubiquitous H 9/3, or whatever it may be. Now this particular little scratch seems to have got everyones knickers in a knot. I wonder what the unknown scratcher would say if he was around to witness the mayhem he’s caused. Maybe he is, or maybe he’s having a chuckle or two from up, (or maybe down) there Chris Phillips understandably queries whether this is in fact H9/3 or H 93. Personally I don’t think its either, but more of that in a minute. I can see Chris’ point of view as looking at the photos the / does most certainly line up with the tail of J in “I am Jack”. However, the fact that there also appears to be a small gap in the line leads me to think that they are not one and the same, and the fact that Turgoose tells us that both were made with different implements is a bit of a clincher really. If Chris’ idea were correct, it would not really make any difference in any case, as the 9 3 is unduly widely spaced, respecting the tail of the J, and would still mean the repair mark was more recent than the word Jack. Now. Have a look at that photo of the scratches again if you can bear it. The more I do, the more I have come to read that particular little scratch as not H at all, but a set of joined initials, almost certainly TC. The T very much the same as the diary Ts. Its not in the usual form for a copperplate H, and a solitary H on its own would surely be a bit meaningless as a repair mark or anything else for that matter. The significance of this is that when a repair mark comprises a set of initials followed by a number, then that number is almost always a date. Admittedly this is seen much more on clocks than on watches, but a set of scratched initials is followed by a date as sure as eggs is eggs. IF this is a set of initials, and IF 9/3 is a date, then it raises some very interesting prospects indeed. IF it is a date, then it would be pointless for a repairer to record the 9th of March, but not so to record September 1903 for future reference. The Edwardians referred to the year in the new century as nineteen hundred and three, not nineteen O three as we do today. The abbreviation of the year to 3, rather than 03 seems to be historically valid as far as I can see. So IF I am right, it would tie the date of the Maybrick scratches down nicely to a date from 1888 to 1903. A nice tidy time frame of 15 years! Regards to all, Paul   Sir Robert Anderson Inspector Username: Sirrobert Post Number: 266 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 11:43 am:        Hi Paul! I've asked this a few times, and once again I apologize if it's been covered somewhere that I missed....I have a really basic question about watch repair marks: Why did repairers leave a mark in the first place? Wouldn't it be considered a mar? Is it still done by modern day restorers? Sir Robert "I only thought I knew" SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com   Paul Butler Detective Sergeant Username: Paul Post Number: 87 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 11:48 am:        Hi Sir R. That was quick. Sorry I wasn't ignoring you. I did answer your specific question a while back, but I think it must be on the other watch thread. I'll see if I can find it and copy over here where it should be. regards, Paul   Paul Butler Detective Sergeant Username: Paul Post Number: 89 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:15 pm:        Sir Robert Darned if I can find that post right now, but its worth repeating in any case. The vast majority of old watches will have some scratched numbers inside the back of the case of some description. These can be repair numbers, casemakers numbers to ensure the right works goes into the right case, and some also believe, pawn numbers, (although I’ve personally found little evidence of the latter). The Maybrick watch is no exception. It has a casemakers number, embossed, not scratched, and this can be clearly seen at the bottom of the inside back. It also has repair or pawn numbers scratched into it in a neat hand, vastly different from the Maybrick marks. The purpose of repair marks was so that a repairer could identify his work at a later date and to prevent an owner from getting a freebie repair by claiming a certain watchmaker had repaired it “only last month”. The practice has all but died out now. It must be remembered that this has not always been a valuable antique! Gold pocket watches were still being broken up for scrap as recently as the 60s. Most jewellers would consider these marks disfiguring today, but the marks already there would not be removed as they form part of the history and interest of an old item. They certainly do for this one!!! A watch like this would have rapidly gone out of fashion after WW1 and the rapid introduction of the wristwatch. It is highly unlikely to have been repaired between the 30s at the latest and the 70s at the earliest, so the repair marks are almost certainly pre 1930 or post 1970. Most intact pocket watches of this type that survive today, only do so by having been forgotten in a drawer for decades. 90% or more pocket watches do have some or all of these marks as I said, and if the relevant scratched numbers on the Maybrick watch are not repair marks then it would be something approaching unique. Just about everything I’ve gleaned about old watches from 30 years in the trade and working in metals all my life tells me that the scratches in our watch are a damned sight closer to 1903 than 1993. The scientists who have had the privilege to get up close and personal with it just happen to agree! All the best, Paul   Sir Robert Anderson Inspector Username: Sirrobert Post Number: 267 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:50 pm:        "Just about everything I’ve gleaned about old watches from 30 years in the trade and working in metals all my life tells me that the scratches in our watch are a damned sight closer to 1903 than 1993. The scientists who have had the privilege to get up close and personal with it just happen to agree! " Thanks for reposting your opinion; I wasn't able to find the original response, either, so it's good to have it out on the Casebook again. You've made some valuable contributions; thanks! For what it's worth, I fall into the "old hoax" school of thought, and what you've said certainly reinforces that line of speculation. Certainly seems that more than a few people were not fond of Sir Jim.... Sir Robert "I only thought I knew" SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com   Caroline Anne Morris Assistant Commissioner Username: Caz Post Number: 1562 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:52 am:        Hi Paul, Thanks for returning to post your latest thoughts on Albert's watch, based on your considerable knowledge and experience. Actually, Albert told me sometime last year that he thought it was TC at first, until Paul Feldman persuaded him that it was a copperplate H. If you are right, my little theory that the engraving means 'Hoaxed in [19]93' bites the dust. How about 'Turgoose Conned in '93'? Love, Caz X   Paul Butler Detective Sergeant Username: Paul Post Number: 92 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:29 am:        Hiya Caz, nice to be here! Interesting that Albert thought it might be TC too at first. The more I look at it the less I see that supposed H at all. How about "Totally Convinced"...!!! Hi Sir Rob, and thanks for your comments too. For what its worth, I fall into the "not a recent hoax" school of thought as you may have noticed! Beyond that, its still wide open as I see it. Regards to all, Paul