|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Maybrick/Jack's watch?
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?
| | SUBTOPIC | MSGS | Last Updated |
 | Archive through 06 February 2002 | 40 | 02/07/2002 07:46pm |
| Archive through 16 July 2001 | 40 | 01/31/2002 01:50pm |
| Archive through April 23, 1999 | 20 | 04/23/1999 04:34am |
| Archive through April 28, 1999 | 20 | 04/28/1999 11:39am |
| Archive through December 01, 2000 | 40 | 12/01/2000 11:05am |
| Archive through February 03, 2001 | 40 | 02/03/2001 11:15am |
| Archive through February 09, 2001 | 40 | 02/09/2001 05:35pm |
| Archive through February 15, 2001 | 40 | 02/15/2001 06:10am |
| Archive through February 19, 2001 | 40 | 02/19/2001 08:39am |
| Archive through January 08, 2001 | 40 | 01/08/2001 10:26am |
| Archive through January 22, 2001 | 40 | 01/22/2001 05:46pm |
| Archive through June 30, 2000 | 20 | 06/30/2000 05:45am |
| Archive through 17 February 2002 | 40 | 02/19/2002 10:26am |
| Archive through March 2, 1999 | 76 | 03/02/1999 12:14pm |
| Archive through May 09, 1999 | 20 | 05/09/1999 08:52am |
| Archive through November 04, 2000 | 40 | 11/03/2000 03:49pm |
| Archive through November 09, 2000 | 40 | 11/09/2000 05:27am |
| Archive through November 15, 2000 | 40 | 11/15/2000 08:25am |
| Archive through November 21, 2000 | 40 | 11/21/2000 04:37pm |
| Archive through October 10, 2000 | 40 | 10/10/2000 08:33am |
| Archive through October 20, 2000 | 40 | 10/19/2000 03:01pm |
| Archive through October 26, 2000 | 40 | 10/25/2000 05:37am |
| Archive through October 31, 2000 | 40 | 10/30/2000 12:20pm |
| Archive through September 06, 2000 | 20 | 09/06/2000 10:20am |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 17 February 2002 - 09:55 pm |        | Hi Peter,
See, this is what happens too often in Paul's book. He takes what is apparently a bit of confusion in two separate conversations, which eventually gets cleared up when both men later confirm that they did indeed deal with the gold watch -- one swearing under oath that it was this watch he repaired and the other confirming that he sold it to Albert -- and Paul turns the earlier confusion into the basis for an elaborate theory about Albert buying a different watch to cover his tracks as part of some intentional deceit.
Unfortunately, Paul has no evidence at all that there was such an intentional deceit. But it fits in with his all-consuming desire for the gold watch to be Maybrick's at all cost much better than the original story later personally and confidently confirmed by both individuals involved.
Rather than say what the evidence actually does or does not allow, Paul leaps to a more dramatic but completely unestablished conclusion. This is what happens when you assume your final conclusion before you start and then simply use everything you can to get there, whether it logically leads there or not.
And actually, Peter, your post above, which is much more tempered than the rhetoric in Paul's book, is a far more reasonable statement of the problems with the conversations in question than Paul has actually written.
And I'm not sure that Mr. Murphy using the phrase "for the first time since selling it" in confirming that this was indeed the watch he sold to Albert and then having to be reminded it that he saw it one other time when he added the info to the receipt is an indication that there was ever a second watch brought to him by Albert or sold to Albert by him. He might simply not have remembered the previous visit. That doesn't seem impossible or even necessarily unlikely. It certainly doesn’t seem logically indicative of some secret strategy on Albert’s part.
In fact, with Tim Dundas and Mr. Murphy, we're talking about two guys who deal with a lot of watches, I would imagine. But when pressed and after time, they both were able to confirm that the gold watch was the one sold to Albert and repaired by Tim. That seems pretty clear.
I don't think the story need have the intrigue behind it that Paul Feldman sees everywhere.
But that's no surprise.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 11:31 am | | Hi All,
Just picking up on a couple of points made over the last few days.
Hi John H,
You wrote:
‘According to Shirley Harrison, Ron Murphy "tried to clean up the scratch marks with jewelers rouge". However if you look at his statement of 20 Oct 1993 in Feldman's book he says only that the "watch case was then cleaned and the watch put in the window". Did he make a more specific statement at some other point?
And you're right, he did say he was "almost certain" that the scratches were there prior to his sale to AJ, he goes on to say that they "were not markings that I would have taken notice of". Not exactly a ringing endorsement.’
Well, firstly, I did make that point in my post of Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 06:20 am, when I wrote: ‘Melvin rejects the jeweller’s testimony, although he stated he was almost certain the markings were there when he sold the watch, although he did say they weren’t markings he would have taken any notice of’.
I don’t know specifically what Ron Murphy said to anyone about cleaning up the scratch marks, but I guess Shirley must have got the jeweller’s rouge bit from somewhere, and didn’t just assume that he would have tried to clean them up using this method.
Then you wrote:
‘Also, it's clear from the statement that he had been shown the watch and then asked for his statement. I'd be curious to know what he remembered before they shoved the watch in his face. Doing that somewhat taints his testimony in my opinion.’
Well, yes, I agree that doing that makes things less than perfect. But if there was as much initial confusion over which watch was being enquired about as has been suggested in the more recent posts, I’m not sure how safe it would be to rely on statements made by either Murphy or Dundas unless the watch with the Maybrick marks had been ‘shoved’ in their faces first, to ensure they knew they were at least all talking about the same one.
The real problem lies in how much, if anything, Murphy knew, or had been told, about the whole story when the watch was ‘shoved’ in his face, and how the questions were put to him. We just don’t know which way his testimony might be tainted as a result. (All this applies equally to Dundas of course.) One can imagine that Murphy may have wanted to show loyalty to a good customer. But unless he realised the full implications of any statement he might make, I see no reason why he would have lied, or been influenced unconsciously into saying what he did say if he didn’t believe it was truly the case. Did he know, for example, that by saying he was ‘almost certain’ that the marks were there when he sold the watch to Albert, he was helping a potential forger? Did he know that he could even be letting suspicion fall on himself, if the science had been able to indicate that the marks were made in recent years? And if he had said he was ‘almost certain’ the marks weren’t there in 1992, would you still be saying his testimony is somewhat tainted by the fact that ‘they shoved the watch in his face’ before he gave it? Or would you be arguing that it counted as good evidence against Albert?
Hi Peter,
I agree with John O that only Feldy was putting Albert forward as a man of two watch faces, when he wasn’t really two-timing at all. Three people, Albert, Tim Dundas and Ron Murphy, were all finally clear in their minds about which watch was the one under the microscope.
You asked:
‘Didn't Melvin Harris or someone of a similar ilk once get the jeweller to say that the scratches relating to JTR must have been added after he sold the watch?’
Just to clarify once more for the record, no – I don’t think Ron Murphy has been reported contradicting his 1993 position of being ‘almost certain’ the scratches were there when he sold the watch to Albert the previous year.
It was Tim Dundas who stated, in 1996, that there were no scratches in the watch when he serviced it for Ron Murphy at least four years previously, before the latter put it up for sale.
So Murphy couldn’t confirm that the scratches he saw were definitely the Maybrick marks. But on the other hand, how could Dundas have been sure in 1996, that no scratches had been in the watch when it was in his care several years previously? At best, all that can really be said is that Dundas didn’t notice any scratches in the course of his work, while Murphy did in the course of his.
Not exactly ringing endorsements either way.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 06:38 pm | | Hi Caz, John.
"Three people, Albert, Tim Dundas and Ron Murphy, were all finally clear in their minds about which watch was the one under the microscope".
Finally clear in their minds? And I'm supposed to accept that? It's not good enough.
Tim Dundas was able to "remember" "the watch" because it was a Verity, and '...you don't get many of them these days ...'.
But John, you can't dispute that at some stage RM and TD were both describing the porcelain dial/black numbers watch. ' ...you don't get many of them these days ...'. What's that? Two Verity watches?
I've conceded that eventually RM and TD identified the gold watch in AJ's possession as the one sold by RM to AJ. But that wasn't their original story. They are definitely describing a different watch to the one now in Albert's possession. But that 'different' watch was also a Verity? Tim Dundas was clear on that, the white faced/black number watch was a Lancaster Verity. We are now being asked to believe that he also handled another Verity watch from RM, but forgot to mention that he had handled two of them. Not likely?
I don't think I'm accusing RM or TD of anything other than being confused. RM sold Albert the white faced watch, TD repaired the white faced watch. It was a Verity - exactly what Albert would have needed for his receipt to authenticate the gold watch.
Under pressure from all sides, and probably with memories a little cabbaged, they changed their stories to fit what they were being asked to say.
I can understand what you are trying to do on behalf of RM and TD, John. But it doesn't fit the facts.
It reminds me of a case I saw on tv a few years ago when a woman had been attacked by three white men. She gave detailed descriptions of them all. All white. The police arrested three black men, and do you know what? Yep, they got picked out at the identity parade. Sound familiar?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 06:40 pm | | Peter,
"...I then called Mr Murphy, owner of the shop where Albert Johnson bought the watch. Mr Murphy confirmed that the watch was white faced, with black numbers and 'Verity' engraved in black on the face. I also asked Mr Murphy whether any letters were engraved on the back, as opposed to scratched on the inside back. Mr Murphy categorically stated that there were not and could not have been, as the ornate design left no room for anything else. Mr Murphy has also told Harold Brough ... that while he could remember 'scratches' he could categorically state that there were no engravings."
"I would say that's pretty conclusive John."
Er, conclusive of what exactly? I'm sure Paul called Mr. Murphy, but we don't know the question asked, or the answer that was given, we only have Paul's interpretation which I fear I do not regard as highly as you do.
You see, when dealing with Tim Dundas, Paul could not have gone directly to him and said "Tell me about the watch that you repaired that was sold to Albert Johnson." It would mean nothing to Tim, the sale was a transaction between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Johnson, after his repair of the watch. The discussion at hand would be "Verity's" repaired by Tim, that were sent by Mr. Murphy. As we know Mr. Murphy sent more than one Verity to TD to repair, so when Paul called Mr. Murphy to ask about the "white faced, with black numbers and 'Verity'" watch it's hardly sup rising he agreed that such a watch was indeed sent. One was sent, as well as the 1846 gold Verity that Albert Johnson bought.
Tim Dundas now swears that the watch Albert Johnson has is one that he repaired. Mr. Murphy has made a statement that the gold watch was the one sold to Albert. How do you explain that Peter? Are they lying? Bribed? Or is it maybe just a case of Paul getting overexcited about a minor confusion over multiple Verity's?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 06:41 pm | | | P.S. Forgot to add that the three black men are now serving long jail sentences for their 'crime'. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 06:43 pm | | Hiya John (Hacker)
Our posts crossed there. I take your points on board and would refer you to my post to Caz and John, above.
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 09:13 pm | | Peter,
Unfortunately, your post above, to Caz and me, doesn't really or specifically answer John's remarks and questions. So referring him there won't help much.
Putting aside your unrelated and completely irrelevant example (this is not anything like a race driven or ideologically driven issue, and there was no reason at all for either Murphy or Dundas to lie -- they had no motive or interest), your argument above does nothing at all except confirm what I have already said. There was some confusion in early discussions concerning which of the several watches that Murphy sent to Dundas they were talking about. That confusion was obviously cleared up in the minds of both men eventually and they stated what they knew (one under oath and the other with a final confirmation). Murphy sold the gold watch to Albert and Dundas worked on it.
For Paul to see the earlier confusion as a sign that somehow Albert was executing some secret strategy of cover-up and duplicity is simply unevidenced speculation of the worst sort and finally nothing more than a simple expression of his own desperate desire and his own a prioriassumption that the watch must have been Maybrick's and testimony and evidence be damned. Paul clearly prefers a good story, even if he is making one up without any evidence, to what the testimony finally and clearly demonstrates.
Such is the case that is made for the watch's and the diary's authenticity.
Such it shall always be.
Bye,
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 09:15 pm | | Caz,
"Well, yes, I agree that doing that makes things less than perfect. But if there was as much initial confusion over which watch was being enquired about as has been suggested in the more recent posts, I’m not sure how safe it would be to rely on statements made by either Murphy or Dundas unless the watch with the Maybrick marks had been ‘shoved’ in their faces first, to ensure they knew they were at least all talking about the same one."
While you make an excellent point regarding identification of the specific watch in question (particularly considering the confusion with the white face black numerals watch), it was certainly not necessary to open the watch. Reading through Murphy's statement it seemed clear to me that his initial reaction to reports that there were words "engraved" on the watch as preposterous. So clearly whatever he saw originally didn't register too strongly with him, because if he had seen words scratched into the surface a big light bulb should have gone off when he read the newspaper report. It apparently did not, and he was skeptical.
I'm sure he did see some scratches in there before. But if he didn't even recognize them as words at the time, then that's an astoundingly weak identification IMO. Also, his statement would have been after the tests were performed and it's likely that he was aware of the results. If he believed that they were scientifically demonstrated to be old, than that could certainly influence him into believing that he must have seen them.
"Did he know, for example, that by saying he was ‘almost certain’ that the marks were there when he sold the watch to Albert, he was helping a potential forger? Did he know that he could even be letting suspicion fall on himself, if the science had been able to indicate that the marks were made in recent years?"
Ummm... I thought he hedged his bets pretty heavily there. "almost" "they were not markings that I would have taken notice of" His liability in making such a lukewarm statement was pretty much zero.
"And if he had said he was ‘almost certain’ the marks weren’t there in 1992, would you still be saying his testimony is somewhat tainted by the fact that ‘they shoved the watch in his face’ before he gave it? Or would you be arguing that it counted as good evidence against Albert?"
You should know better than that Caz, if I wanted to pick and choose testimony simply because it supports my working assumption that the watch is a fraud I'd leap on Tim Dundas's testimony. He insists the scratches were not there. But as you should recall, I dismissed his testimony as wanting as well. I alter my beliefs to match the evidence, not vice versa. You're thinking of the other guy. :-)
And additionally, I'm not interested in "evidence against Albert". I don't think a case CAN be made against anyone without some startling new evidence. Albert is the best suspect, but he's certainly not the only one who could have done it. My main interest in the watch at the moment is to figure out how it could have been faked and what it could tell us about the forger. I have a few more bits and pieces of watch related thinking I will post at some point, but I'm not certainly trying to build a case against anyone specific.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 09:24 pm | | Peter,
I must point out that Tim Dundas's statement regarding the WFBN Verity is irrelevant as to which watch is in Albert's possesion. Only Ron Murphy's testimony is relevant in that question because he sold it to him. Tim Dundas was not a party to that transaction.
"are now being asked to believe that he also handled another Verity watch from RM, but forgot to mention that he had handled two of them. Not likely?"
That's what they're saying Peter. It's my impression that the base confusion comes from Tim Dundas only recalling the WFBN Verity and not the gold Verity when initially approached by Paul regarding Verity watches. Paul calls Ron Murphy, asks about the WFBN Verity. (There's no evidence at this stage that Ron Murphy was even aware that Paul was fishing for Albert's watch, only the WFBN Verity.) Paul gets all excited when Ron Murphy confirms the existence of such a watch. Ron Murphy is aware that the watch he sold to Albert was the gold 1846 Verity and has never claimed otherwise. Tim Dundas now remembers the 1846 gold Verity. It all makes perfect sense unless you're Paul Feldman.
You're certainly welcome to draw whatever conclusion you like, but in my opinion there's simply nothing there.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 10:26 am | | Hi John H,
Just a quick question for now. How do you know that Murphy's 1993 statement 'would have been after the tests were performed' or that 'it's likely that he was aware of the results'?
I agree that, if Murphy was aware, or was being told by then, that two independent tests had indicated that the marks were decades old, this could have influenced his statement, because he might have been led to believe the marks must therefore have been there when he sold the watch. But is this based on any assumptions on your part?
And this doesn't seem to work with most of the non-jewellers and lay people around these parts, does it, who tend to say, "We all know scratches like those can't be dated and could just as easily be very recent", rather than, "If two independent metallurgists say they are old, then maybe they are old".
How can you argue that Murphy could certainly be influenced by reports (assuming he knew about them) that you yourself, and others here, are so sceptical about?
Just wondering.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 11:07 am | | Hiya Caz,
"How do you know that Murphy's 1993 statement 'would have been after the tests were performed' or that 'it's likely that he was aware of the results'?"
I'm at work and I don't have my copy of Feldman's book here, but while reading it last night I noticed Feldman quoting AJ's attorney and mentioning the Turgoose tests in Sept which would be before Ron M's statement. As I recall, (please correct me if I am wrong) the Turgoose tests were made before any of the watch stuff hit the press so it seems like a fair assumption that it would have been mentioned in the newspaper reports (which we know RM read), and if he were contacted by any reporters it would likely be brought up.
Additionally, Paul Feldman seems to prefer leading questions. Actual questions seem to make him uncomfortable. So yeah, it's an assumption on my part, but I think it's a fairly safe one.
"And this doesn't seem to work with most of the non-jewelers and lay people around these parts, does it, who tend to say, "We all know scratches like those can't be dated and could just as easily be very recent", rather than, "If two independent metallurgists say they are old, then maybe they are old"."
Well we do know that scratches can't be dated based on the work done, it says so in the scientific reports. Why should we assign more certainly to the results than the scientists themselves are willing to do? That would be pretty silly IMO. They know it could have been faked, and we know it is as well.
"How can you argue that Murphy could certainly be influenced by reports (assuming he knew about them) that you yourself, and others here, are so sceptical about?"
Any number of reasons. Because people evaluate evidence differently. Because I have looked into the dating of scratches and actually read the reports and know why they're flawed, whereas I doubt RM has done the same. Because Paul was there to pitch his case directly at him. Because AJ is such a "Nice Guy" that he couldn't have done it. Etc etc etc.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 06:37 am | | Hi John,
Thanks for your reply.
Ok, so if we assume that, by the time Ron Murphy said he was 'almost certain' the Maybrick marks had been in the watch when he sold it to Albert, he was already under the impression from all sides that they were decades old –
whether it was because of Feldy's line of questioning (although you don't know what was asked);
or whether it was from reading all the stories in the newspapers (although you don't know what information they contained);
or whether it was from direct contact with journalists (although you don't know if any took place, or how any such conversations went);
or whether it was due to the jeweller's own cursory reading, or misunderstanding, of the test results (although you don't know how much, if any, of the Turgoose report Murphy had actually seen or was aware of, or had been told about);
or whether it was because the jeweller judged Albert to be too honest to have forged the marks himself (although you don't know what Murphy may have known or thought about other members of Albert's family) -
if we assume this, then yes, I can see why you would then argue that Murphy's statement amounts to very little, even if he was 'almost certain' in his own mind that the scratches he was looking at around October 1993 were the same as those that had been in the watch when he sold it to Albert a little over a year previously.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 07:53 am | | Caz,
"if we assume this, then yes, I can see why you would then argue that Murphy's statement amounts to very little, even if he was 'almost certain' in his own mind that the scratches he was looking at around October 1993 were the same as those that had been in the watch when he sold it to Albert a little over a year previously."
As I said before Caz, I think his statement is weak on it's face. It's clear that the guy is in no way sure that he had seen them. We don't need to make any of assumptions to know that. He hedges his bet twice with "almost" and by mentioning that they are not marks that he would have noticed.
The guy has to handle a lot of watches and I find it very hard to believe that he can identify the incidental scratches on inside back cover of an arbitrary watch he handled a year ago. If he had identified writing at the time it would be different. But he didn't, did he? His initial reaction to the reports of words in the watch seems to have been skepticism.
The speculations I made above were simply idle thoughts, but I don't really have any doubt that the test results and believed age were given to him before he made his statement. If you'd like we can go through Shirley and Paul's books and pick out some choice statements from witnesses that it's pretty clear have been influenced by the investigators. Michael's guilt problem anyone? Or this little gem from David Thompson, "Although I have not examined the watch scientifically, I would not have any immediate reason to doubt the age of the scratches." He has obviously been given an age for the scratches.
You're certainly free to assign any weight you like to Ron Murphy's statement. You asked me once how I would feel if he was almost certain that the scratches weren't there, and I'd like to ask the same question of you. You seem very taken with Ron Murphy's testimony, but apparently Tim Dundas was certain that the scratches weren't there. As you know I'm not particularly fond of his testimony personally, but at least he had confidence in his own opinion and didn't feel the need to hedge his bets with "almost"
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 06:16 am | | Hi John,
And, as I too said before:
'Murphy couldn’t confirm that the scratches he saw were definitely the Maybrick marks. But on the other hand, how could Dundas have been sure in 1996, that no scratches had been in the watch when it was in his care several years previously? At best, all that can really be said is that Dundas didn’t notice any scratches in the course of his work, while Murphy did in the course of his.
Not exactly ringing endorsements either way.'
So how does that make me seem 'very taken' with Murphy's testimony? I'm just trying to work out how we can fairly judge either man's statements before rejecting both as conflicting and/or unreliable.
I managed to have a quick word with Keith yesterday to try to clear up a couple of points on which I wasn't clear. He was on the move at the time and therefore couldn't look anything up.
1) Keith thinks Murphy stated that Dundas would have had no need, in the course of the work he was asked to do, to look at the surface where the letters were later found to be scratched.
2) Keith says that, as far as he is aware, Feldy has never met Murphy. But they have talked on the phone, with Feldy only succeeding in confusing the poor chap with his two-watch theory, and worrying him into thinking he was going to be accused of handling stolen property!
3) Keith says he and Shirley went to see Murphy with Albert’s watch, to make sure he knew which one was being discussed. Murphy has seen the watch on more than one occasion since selling it to Albert.
4) Keith is pretty sure that Dundas has not seen the watch again. There is certainly no indication that he was shown it when he made his 1996 statement.
To sum up, Murphy said he saw some scratches – even tried polishing them out – before selling the watch to Albert in 1992.
Dundas said, in 1996, that there weren’t any scratches when he last saw the watch, several years previously, to repair it for Murphy.
One of them is wrong about whether there were scratches on the surface where the words and initials were later discovered. Forget the Maybrick marks for now. That’s comparing apples with oranges.
I have a simple choice here. If I go with Dundas’ confidence in his own certainty, I would be rejecting Murphy’s word about the simple existence of some scratches and what he did to try to remove them. And I have no reason to do that. It would not be a case of rejecting Murphy’s bet-hedging ‘almost certain’, concerning the Maybrick marks – that's a separate issue.
In accepting Murphy’s word on the existence of some scratches alone, I am inevitably rejecting Dundas’ opinion. That doesn’t mean I think he lied. I just think he must not have looked closely, if at all, at the surface in question, at any time. Otherwise, he’d have at least seen what Murphy saw.
And finally, whether we reject the testimony of both men concerning the Maybrick marks, or whether we consider that Murphy may have been trying to polish them out without realising what they were, we both have to admit that we have no way of knowing for certain yet if these marks were there or not when Albert bought the watch in 1992.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 09:25 pm | | Hiya Caz,
"So how does that make me seem 'very taken' with Murphy's testimony?"
"In accepting Murphy’s word on the existence of some scratches alone, I am inevitably rejecting Dundas’ opinion. That doesn’t mean I think he lied. I just think he must not have looked closely, if at all, at the surface in question, at any time. Otherwise, he’d have at least seen what Murphy saw."
Well Caz, I have to apologize. I misunderstood your position. I didn't realize that you thought that Tim Dundas vs. Ron Murphy was an "either/or" proposition. That thought would simply have never occurred to me.
In your last post you said : "Dundas said, in 1996, that there weren’t any scratches when he last saw the watch, several years previously, to repair it for Murphy."
Do you have the full text of his statement? I would really like to see that bit. Because if he said there were no scratches at all, then I can pretty much toss him out entirely. In 150 years there had to be at least a few scratches.
Unfortunately I have only Paul's excerpt, "Marks on this watch pertaining to 'Jack the Ripper' have been made on this watch since I examined and repaired it in 1992, the whole suggestion that this watch belonged to 'Jack the Ripper' is completely false".
If he testified that there were no scratches at all then it's very much a Tim Dundas vs. Ron Murphy, winner take all kind of thing. But from the bit of his testimony I have seen, it just looks like he's saying very specifically that the "Maybrick marks" weren't there, not that it was pristine. In that case it's not incompatible with Ron Murphy's testimony. Some of the repair marks on the watch certainly predated 1992 so Ron could see a familiar mark or two and Tim could be right about the "Maybrick marks" not being there.
"Keith thinks Murphy stated that Dundas would have had no need, in the course of the work he was asked to do, to look at the surface where the letters were later found to be scratched."
Whether or not he had a need to look at it specifically or not (And I agree that there doesn't seem to be a reason he would have had to unless it was to look for repair marks left by previous watch repair dudes), it looks to me from the picture in Shirley's book that if he's going in with a jewelers loupe to get a gander at the mechanism he's going to be looking within an inch or so of the markings. The top flips up and the mechanism is hinged at a 90 degree angle and swings out, right? That would put the back of the inner cover right next to the mechanism. (Please forgive me if I am reading the picture wrong, I've never seen the watch personally and the picture is fairly bad, but that's what it looks like to me.)
If so, wouldn't it be reasonable to suppose that he would have gotten a look at the inside back at some point as he worked? I don't see how he could fail to see it at all if he was working on it for any length of time. Indeed, I think that Tim Dundas is in a lot better position than Ron Murphy to identify the scratches as he would have used magnification. However, given his initial confusion with the "wfbn Verity" I'm pretty hesitant to accept his testimony at face value.
I would really appreciate it if you (or Keith) could help me out with the basis for the "Ron Murphy trying to polish out the scratches" story.
I've seen a one line assertion in Shirley's book that Ron tried to polish out the "Maybrick marks", but I haven't actually seen the statement they're basing that claim on. In his statement of 20 Oct 1993, he's laying it all out but he doesn't say ANYTHING about trying to polish out the marks. I would think that it would certainly have been worth a mention if he was going to make a statement. He does says that he cleaned up the case, but he doesn't say anything about trying to polish out the "Maybrick marks", or even refer to the cleaning the inner cover.
Personally, I find it somewhat hard to believe that he would have tried to polish out those particular marks, on that particular surface. They're on the inside cover that will pretty much only be seen by repair folk. It's functional, and not a decorative surface. Other jewelers apparently regarded that area as a scratch pad , why would he care too much? And most importantly it's got those big ugly stamp marks on the inside, why bother with tiny faint scratches when you got those? Do you what Shirley's basing that on?
In any case, there's a whole pile of non-"Maybrick marks" on the watch that could account for Ron's recognition and polishing attempt. If it happened. Sigh.
"And finally, whether we reject the testimony of both men concerning the Maybrick marks, or whether we consider that Murphy may have been trying to polish them out without realizing what they were, we both have to admit that we have no way of knowing for certain yet if these marks were there or not when Albert bought the watch in 1992."
I absolutely agree 100%. :-)
Many thanks to Keith for clearing up the question of when Ron Murphy was shown the watch.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 11:34 am | | Hi John,
Interesting and thought-provoking questions. I'll try to find some answers for you over the next few days.
'In any case, there's a whole pile of non-"Maybrick marks" on the watch that could account for Ron's recognition and polishing attempt. If it happened.'
Well, he presumably wouldn't have attempted to polish out repair marks. And, as I said before, in Bournemouth I saw a 'whole pile' of nothing, although others said they could see scratches on the surface in question in the right light and under a magnifying glass - I didn't hear anyone say they actually recognised the scratches as words or letters as such, even though we all knew by then that words and letters were indeed present and we knew where we were supposed to be looking.
I'm just not particularly surprised that Dundas would say what he did in 1996 about marks on the watch pertaining to 'Jack the Ripper' being made on this watch since he examined and repaired it in 1992, if he wasn't shown the surface again. If I hadn't known anything about the marks last autumn, when I looked at Albert's watch, and was later asked to say if they had been there when I was staring at it, I too would have said the whole suggestion was completely false, and that they must have been made since.
Of course, I am no watch repairer, so I do see that Dundas would be the only one in a position to judge if he could have examined and repaired the watch in 1992 without noticing such marks, if they had been there then. But, in order to make this judgement, and be as certain as he appears to be, he would first need to have had access to the watch again, to see for himself how visible or obvious they actually are up close, and not just from a photograph.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 08:51 pm | | Hiya Caz,
Anything you could find out would be greatly appreciated.
I would agree that it would seem unlikely that he would try to polish out repair marks. But it doesn't make any sense to me that he would try to clean trivial marks off of a surface that's marred that badly by the repair marks. Ah well, people often puzzle me.
"I'm just not particularly surprised that Dundas would say what he did in 1996 about marks on the watch pertaining to 'Jack the Ripper' being made on this watch since he examined and repaired it in 1992, if he wasn't shown the surface again."
I have not seen the marks myself so I can't really comment on that too much except to say that I have seen watchmakers work. They work with magnification and a lot of light. If the marks have been noticed by the naked eye, it seems likely that he would have had a good chance of seeing them had they been there at the time. I agree that he certainly could have missed them, but he seemed to have reason to think that he would have noticed them had they been there. I'd like to know the basis for his belief, but then I'd like to know the basis for Ron Murphy's identification of the "Maybrick marks" as well. We're getting their conclusions, but none of the details that led them to their respective positions.
"But, in order to make this judgement, and be as certain as he appears to be, he would first need to have had access to the watch again, to see for himself how visible or obvious they actually are up close, and not just from a photograph."
True, but he was operating under the best possible conditions to see them if they were there, and Ron Murphy and others allegedly spotted them under much worse conditions. It would certainly be interesting to show him the watch again and see if he changes his opinion. Just to play devils advocate though, if it does turn out that Ron Murphy did try to polish off the marks before putting it in the window, than it wouldn't really be possible. He would have repaired the watch before it was cleaned up and any scratches that would have been present then would presumably be less visible today than they were when Tim worked on it. So his chances at seeing them at that point in time would have been better than they would be today.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 05:54 am | | Hi John,
Yes, I see what you mean if the scratches were made fainter by Ron Murphy's polishing (if he tried) than when Tim Dundas was repairing the watch. Any comparison Dundas were to make between his recollection of the surface then, and what he was seeing now, would, as you say, not really be possible in that case. We'd need to ask Murphy first if he can remember how successful he was with his polishing, which I believe Melvin Harris referred to as a 'gentle rouge job'.
In other words, did it leave the surface pretty much as it was before, or was it more like a full face lift? (Perhaps I'll ask Murphy if it would work on me.  )
We do at least know now that Feldy wasn't influencing Ron Murphy into thinking the scratches he'd seen must also be the 'decades-old' Maybrick marks. Quite the opposite in fact. Feldy had got it firmly stuck in his brain that the watch with the Maybrick marks had never been near Murphy or his jeweller's rouge before its debut.
And if Murphy did manage to make any scratches noticeably less visible before selling the watch to Albert, wouldn't he have been taken aback to see it again a year later, plus the Maybrick marks, if they were a later addition? The 'forger' would have had to be extremely confident in his abilities (or pretty reckless) to risk going back to the jeweller and shoving the now tampered-with watch in his face, tempting him to spot the difference!
Anyway, I hope to have an answer for you soon regarding what Ron Murphy actually said about working on the scratches before putting the watch in his window.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 07:13 am | | Hiya Caz,
"We do at least know now that Feldy wasn't influencing Ron Murphy into thinking the scratches he'd seen must also be the 'decades-old' Maybrick marks."
This is a good thing, however we don't know what he might have read in the papers or if he could have been influenced by the interviewers. Having read through Shirley's book it certainly still seems possible that the interview wasn't well handled. I wonder what paper Ron Murphy reads. It would be interesting to see what the local papers would have said about the watch before RM's statement.
"And if Murphy did manage to make any scratches noticeably less visible before selling the watch to Albert, wouldn't he have been taken aback to see it again a year later, plus the Maybrick marks, if they were a later addition? The 'forger' would have had to be extremely confident in his abilities (or pretty reckless) to risk going back to the jeweller and shoving the now tampered-with watch in his face, tempting him to spot the difference!"
That's an interesting point, but I'm pretty skeptical in general of peoples ability to recognize the entire pattern of scratch marks on a watch, so I don't really think it's too much of a risk. In any case, the 'forger' could have certainly claimed quite safely to have caused wear or to have polished the watch while it was in his possession before Ron Murphy had a chance to see it again. Also, the apparent faintness of the scratches would make certainly make it seem more plausible.
And one last thought that just occured to me (I really need to sit down and make a timeline of the whole watch thing), *if* we're going to assess the risk to the forger that the watch might pose it's worth noting that (hypothetical forger #1) Albert did take the thing to Dr. Turgoose before taking it to Shirley or showing it to Ron, etc. So before he would have taken any serious risks, he would have had at least one sceintific opinion backing his position. And if the tests had shown it to be a recent forgery there would be no problem at all, no fraud would have occurred. At the very least he could be fairly confident at that point that he had made no glaring mistakes.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 10:06 am | | Hi again John,
Where did you get the information that Albert took his watch to Dr. Turgoose, paid for the test and got the results he was hoping for, 'before taking it to Shirley or showing it to Ron, etc'? I'm not doubting your word, I just don't recall the actual sequence of events, and exactly when Albert took it to the local paper and thence to Robert Smith, back to the shop to ask about its history, and for testing. I had the idea that the tests were recommended by a third party, but whether that was the local paper, a solicitor, Robert Smith or Shirley, or more than one of these, I'm not entirely sure.
But just before reading your latest post, I spoke briefly with Shirley Harrison about the scratches. She says she is sure there is a statement by Ron Murphy to the effect that he tried to buff out scratches in the watch before putting it on sale, but that his attempt was to no avail.
Shirley also says that Bristol University found buffing marks corresponding with those that Murphy would have made in the process of trying to remove the scratches beneath.
Shirley is unable to go through her documentation right now but thinks Keith has a copy of the relevant statement by Murphy. When I speak to him I’ll ask if he can put his hands on it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 11:23 am | | And again.
Just spoke with Keith, who is almost certain that Ron Murphy made the remark about trying to buff out the scratches with jeweller's rouge when he and Shirley visited Ron on February 13th, 1997. The conversation was recorded.
Also, a statement was made by Murphy on July 5th 1996, taken by Alan Gray, which includes the following:
I actually polished the watch after it was returned from overhaul by Mr Dundas. On the rear case, inside I noticed scratch marks, there were several marks. I did not scrutinise them closely so I am unable to say exactly what they were.
Hope this helps.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 11:27 am | | Hiya Caz,
Just a quick reponse as I am at work right now.
"Where did you get the information that Albert took his watch to Dr. Turgoose, paid for the test and got the results he was hoping for, 'before taking it to Shirley or showing it to Ron, etc'?"
That was the impression I got while flipping through Shirley's book this morning. She described going to meet Albert with the watch for the first time and it sounded to me like he had the Turgoose tests already in hand when they met. I don't have the book here so I can't really check. It's certainly possible I misread.
"Shirley also says that Bristol University found buffing marks corresponding with those that Murphy would have made in the process of trying to remove the scratches beneath."
Of course such marks could also have been made by someone seeking to artifically age the scratches. :-) We know from the Turgoose report that there was certainly polishing done. The question is which person or persons did it and why. And of course even if RM did try to polish out some marks, that automatically mean that the "Maybrick marks" weren't added and buffed later. Sigh. So many questions, so little time.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 11:44 am | | Hi John,
Well, I believe Robert Smith saw Albert and his watch before Shirley did, and on checking Blake, the watch was tested on Richard Nicholas' suggestion. It all depends on which came first, the visit to Robert Smith (to market the forgery, if you believe that's what this visit was for), or the testing. Then we'll know if Albert put the cart before the horse.
'Of course such marks could also have been made by someone seeking to artifically age the scratches.'
Yes, but at least Bristol independently supported Ron's statement that he did some buffing. If he hadn't done any, you'd have a stronger case that what Bristol found was done by the forger after it left Murphy's hands.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 09:46 pm | | Hiya Caz,
Our posts crossed earlier. Many thanks for the statement by Murphy, that does help a bit I think!
It certainly seems to underscore his uncertainty of his own identification. Also, I find it kind of interesting that in both statements he mentions cleaning or polishing, and markings, but never says anything about a concerted effort to remove the markings. I would think that would be extremely relevant to the statements he was making, wouldn't you? From the quote above it simply reads (to me) as if he was polishing the watch and simply noticed that there were markings.
I don't want to necessarily want to dispute Keith's recollection, but I'm trying to get a feel for how much actual effort Ron Murphy put into his polishing. Was he simply trying to shine the surface? Or obliterate the intentional scratch marks? He said that they weren't marks he would taken notice of. Then why try to rub them out? He said that he didn't scrutinize them closely. If he was trying to polish them out, how could he not scrutinize them closely simply to see how he's coming along? From the statements available, it really doesn't seem like he put that much effort into it beyond perhaps a quick shine. I will think on it some more.
"It all depends on which came first, the visit to Robert Smith (to market the forgery, if you believe that's what this visit was for), or the testing. Then we'll know if Albert put the cart before the horse."
I read through Shirley's book again and it's vague on that point. I'll dig into Feldman tomorrow and see if it's in there.
"Yes, but at least Bristol independently supported Ron's statement that he did some buffing. If he hadn't done any, you'd have a stronger case that what Bristol found was done by the forger after it left Murphy's hands."
Without knowing the details of what Bristol said I have no idea how to interpert their findings. Were any specific marks particularly buffed? Any ignored? Was the entire surface done? It's interesting, but it could mean quite a lot of things.
And one last quick thought before I fall into bed. You've mentioned how hard the scratches were to see when you saw the watch (last year I believe?) I was wondering how Albert is maintaining it. If he's polishing it, the scratches may be fainter now then they would have been back when it first turned up. If he's not polishing it, would that make the scratches more hard to see? I'm not sure what the proper care and feeding instructions for a watch with "historical scratches" would be.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 04:36 am | | Hi guys
Just thought I'd remind you that the good old British public think the watch AND the diary are genuine.
Here's an interesting spanner to throw in the works. I've always accepted without question what you guys say: i.e. That the watch is a ladies watch. But Albert put forward a convincing argument on the Discovery Channel for the watch being a Gentleman's watch after all.
I'll never trust you lot again! You rogues! I thought you had ascertained that the watch is a ladies watch, but you hadn't. You just stated it as fact without ever having proven it.
Wasn't Albert fantastic?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 05:24 am | | Hi John,
The impression I get, from Ron's statements, and the quote in Blake - 'I tried to buff them out with jeweller's rouge', he recalls ruefully - and my conversation with Shirley yesterday, is that he was simply going through the motions of preparing the watch for sale. He was giving it the once over and cleaning it up, and in the process, gave the several scratch marks he says he noticed a routine buffing up to try to minimise their appearance. According to Shirley yesterday, Ron said the buffing had no effect at all on these particular scratches so he just left it at that.
To me, there appears nothing untoward about Ron not making a concerted effort to remove the markings, and therefore no sign of any such effort being reflected in his statements. Indeed, I would agree with you that, if he'd made more of his claimed attempt to make them fainter, it would be harder to believe that he also hadn't scrutinised them closely enough during that attempt to make out exactly what they were.
I do have a strong suspicion that Albert's first port of call was the local paper, who in turn advised him to contact Robert Smith, and that this was done some time before the first forensic test was carried out on the watch. But I will try to check the order of events for you. If it turns out that Albert went straight to Robert, before he could have guessed what the scientists would make of it all, would you say this made Albert less likely to be knowingly involved in what, at the time, would have been an extremely recent forgery? Or would you say he was knowledgeable enough about the shortcomings of forensic testing to take the risk? Or would you say he was conned by someone who was? And if so, how could that someone have manipulated the discovery of the scratches by Albert and his work-mates?
Yes, it would be interesting to know how Albert is maintaining his trusty timepiece. The one thing we do know is that, nearly nine years on, he still has no inclination to part with it for considerable cash sums.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 05:32 am | | Hi Peter,
To be strictly accurate about this, the good old European public, or those who happened to tune in and vote on Sunday night, thought Maybrick marginally more likely than Tumblety to be the ripper, and a lot more likely than either Gull or Kosminski.
Shirley told me that around 15,000 people phoned in, and that the majority of questions were regarding the Maybrick diary. Questions mean that people are still in the process of trying to make sense of what they are hearing.
But it's good to know there is that much interest out there in the subject - not quite the dodo some would have us believe.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 08:29 am | | Is this this same British public that thought the world to be flat, the Empire would last for ever and Bobby Davro was good enough to have his own show ??
Caz is right, its good to have the interest, even if the interest is being contaminated by falsity.
Monty
Time will reveal all. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 10:17 am | | Hi Monty,
I'd have thought we rarely, if ever, get a true picture of public opinion on such matters. Unless opinion polls, surveys and such, are compulsory for all, and designed with built in immunity to people who would give false or silly answers, how would you know what the British or any other public think about the world or Bobby Davro?
You must know something I don't about how these things work.
As for contamination by falsity, that is precisely why questions should continue to be asked and minds kept open, until all the answers are verified and the last falsity has been exposed for what it is.
But that's just my opinion.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 02:16 pm | | Hey Monty
Where've you been hiding that wicked sense of humour?
Bobby Davro!
Caz: It wasn't narrow, it was convincing. British, European - according to Blair it's all one and the same these days.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 04:34 am | | Hi Peter,
Didn't Maybrick end up with something like 38% of the vote? Less than half? With Tumblety only a few percent lower?
That's more narrow than convincing in my book.
And what's wrong with being European as well as British? Can you imagine our grandchildren howling with laughter when we sit them on our laps and tell them about the days when we actually preferred to change our pounds into the currency of whichever country we were visiting, and then back again afterwards?
You get such a feel for Rome or Milan when you are paying for your Big Mac in Italian lire, don't you?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 08:10 am | | Caz, Peter, but especially Caz,
I was joking.
Of course falsity needs to be look in to and eradicated.
Keep up the good work whilst I watch from afar.. eating my Beeg Mac ina Roma !
Monty
|
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 11:53 am | | Hi Monty,
Glad to hear it.
But whatever you do, don't joke on that Big Mac.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 01:03 pm | | Hiya Caz,
I will try to get time to do a bigger post tonight, but I wanted to give you a brief response to your questions while I have a few minutes of quiet.
"To me, there appears nothing untoward about Ron not making a concerted effort to remove the markings, and therefore no sign of any such effort being reflected in his statements. Indeed, I would agree with you that, if he'd made more of his claimed attempt to make them fainter, it would be harder to believe that he also hadn't scrutinized them closely enough during that attempt to make out exactly what they were."
Yeah, that's my take on it. He tried, but not necessarily too hard. It's a pity. If we could document that he did make a serious effort, we could write off the already weak case for authenticity entirely. Ah well, that an attempt was made actually dovetails very nicely with Turgoose's report and explains a couple of anomalies. I don't have my copy of SH's book here, so I can't go into details right now, but I think you'll find it interesting.
"If it turns out that Albert went straight to Robert, before he could have guessed what the scientists would make of it all, would you say this made Albert less likely to be knowingly involved in what, at the time, would have been an extremely recent forgery? Or would you say he was knowledgeable enough about the shortcomings of forensic testing to take the risk?"
I think the forger had a pretty good idea as to how it would be dated, and I have some ideas as how he got the information. I will try to go into some detail later, but the information needed to make and age the scratches is not obscure. My grandmother could do it.
"The one thing we do know is that, nearly nine years on, he still has no inclination to part with it for considerable cash sums."
I would not expect him to sell it. In my opinion, profit wasn't the motive for the watch forgery. This ties in with where I think the knowledge came from. It's admittedly only a possibility, but I think it explains the facts nicely. It'll take a while to type up, but I will try to get to that by this weekend.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 03:08 pm | | Caz, Monty
38% of the popular vote? About the same percentage that President, oops sorry, Prime Minister Blair got at the last election, right? And I think Tumblety was about twelve points behind, so that means Maybrick outstripped Dr T. by 50% of Dr T.'s total.
I'd still say that's convincing.
I don't even know why we bothered fighting the war if we're just gonna surrender to Blair's plan for European submission - oops, I did it again - domination. I was born in Britain. I'm British. I love the Royal Family. I'm not ashamed to be proud of my culture, my heritage, my country. I don't care who wants to come and live here. They're all welcome. The more the merrier. I wouldn't turn anyone away. Providing they all want to keep the pound and not some stupid, flight of fancy, no better than monopoly money, currency.
But that's just me.
John H.
Your grandmother could do it? How would she implant the aged brass particles then? How would she fool the scientists at Umist who dated the scratches as being so old that they must be genuine?
Just a couple of questions for you to chew over. When you've got the time, of course.
Regards etc
Peter. |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 08:40 pm | | Caz,
If an attempt was made to clean the watch, it would seem reasonable to me that trying to clean the visible marks would probably have a pretty brutal effect on the lesser, more superficial scratches. Which is interesting in light of Turgoose's report.
"On the basis of the evidence...especially the order in which the markings pre-date the vast majority of the superficial scratch marks (all of those examined)."
This makes for two interesting questions.
Why were there still so many superficial scratch marks? These could not have been caused by an attempt to clean the watch, and seem unlikely to have survived a serious assault. There are were still apparently enough left to rate a "vast".
If there were superficial scratch marks, why were all (admittedly we don't know how many they examined) of them on top of the markings? Surely the watch was scratched at some point in the first 50 years of it's life. Presumably they would also be the most polished out, but it seems weird that all of the superficial scratches are more recent than the markings. Of course, if the watch was seriously polished it would have given our forger a clean base to work with which would explain the lack of any "pre marking" superficial marks.
At the moment it seems to me that the harder Ron tried, the less likely there is any chance that the watch contained those markings while in his shop. But I'm still thinking it through.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 09:29 pm | | Peter,
Here's the problem. I'm having to put in a lot of overtime, so I simply don't have time anymore to argue for the sake of arguing. You don't really seem interested in what anyone else has to say beyond what you can take out of context for your snappy comeback, or to figure out which is the appropriate Feldman routine to regurgitate next post when you smite the unbelievers for their heresy. So you see, I'm at a loss to justify spending large amounts of time to putting together serious responses to your posts anymore. It's simply too depressing.
I'm still trying to answer the questions of who wrote the diary and who Jack was, and discussing it with you doesn't seem to be getting me any answers. Or even any good questions.
If you're ever interested in discussing the matter seriously by all means let me know. I like to argue as much as anyone, but this is simply too complex a subject for me to invest that kind of time. We could argue which is the best sitcom or best movie on the pub board if you like, that's a lot quicker.
Regards,
John Hacker
P.S. For anyone who is actually interested, Peter's questions were answered (as he well knows) in these two posts.
How it was dated
How I think the effect could have been created |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 07:53 am | | Peter,
STOP
Convincing ? Yes !
Totally ? No !
CARRY ON
Monty
|
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 08:23 am | | Hi John,
I value your posts regarding the scratches found in the watch when it was examined by Turgoose - thanks very much.
I'd like your opinion on my earlier post where I wrote:
'Shirley also says that Bristol University found buffing marks corresponding with those that Murphy would have made in the process of trying to remove the scratches beneath.'
What exactly do you think these buffing marks looked like? Would this 'gentle rouge job', as I think Ron's buffing was described by Melvin Harris, be easily distinguishable from scratch marks made over the years? And would Bristol have been able to say whether they found such buffing marks above or below the Maybrick marks, or even above and below?
I'm still not clear about what was found and how this compares, or possibly conflicts, with Ron's testimony.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 10:23 am | | Hiya Caz,
Thanks! I'm sorry I forgot to reply to the bit about the buff marks before. Here's my take on it.
"What exactly do you think these buffing marks looked like?"
With buffing you'd be moving a mass of teeny-tiny particles in the same general direction, it would probably appear as a faint "smear". Sort of like with "brushed" metal, but with much finer abrasion.
"Would this 'gentle rouge job', as I think Ron's buffing was described by Melvin Harris, be easily distinguishable from scratch marks made over the years?"
Yeah, I think so. Turgoose said he saw evidence of repeated wear and polishing, that means he was able to distinguish the effect that polishing had on the incidental scratches and saw them as being of separate origin.
"And would Bristol have been able to say whether they found such buffing marks above or below the Maybrick marks, or even above and below?"
I don't think they could tell if there were any buff marks under the Maybrick marks. If there were buff marks there when the Maybrick marks were made, they would have been obliterated when the marks were made. The intersection of the scratches and the buff marks would have made it possible to tell which came first, but thanks to Turgoose, we know that the watch was polished after the marks were made. Any pre-existing buff-marks still on the surface, would get rebuffed, and the intersection of the "original" buff-marks and markings would have been worn away by the time Bristol got a look at it.
"I'm still not clear about what was found and how this compares, or possibly conflicts, with Ron's testimony."
I think that the only conclusion we can really draw from it is that someone tried to polish the watch. Unfortunately there would be expect buff marks whether the marks were pre-existing, or created after Ron Murphy tried to polish it.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 12:04 pm | | John Hacker
In other words, you don't have an answer. You've been promising an indepth analysis of how the watch could have been forged for a while now, but it hasn't been forthcoming.
Your "ideas" revolve around points that are of little interest or consequence. You can't prove the watch is a fake. But the scientists at Umist can prove that the marks in the watch are decades old. I'm not being provocative John. I just want decent answers to the questions. And you don't have any.
But hey, who am I to interrupt your private conversation with Caz?
Monty, wait for me, I'm coming with you kid, it's getting a bit stagnant down here.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 12:21 pm | | Thanks John.
So, in other words, is there any strong reason why the buffing marks Bristol saw in 1993 could not have been those made by Ron Murphy a year previously?
In which case, the Maybrick marks would have been present when he was doing his jeweller's rouge job on the watch?
Failing that, Albert put the Maybrick marks in the watch, or asked or allowed someone else to do it for him, then the surface was buffed up, and this is the buffing Bristol saw a few weeks later when the watch was tested.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 01:50 pm | | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10...
Peter,
Your last post is a perfect example of why it's becoming a waste of time to deal with you. Unfortunately I have the flu today, so I'll indulge you this one time.
"In other words, you don't have an answer."
No I meant what I said. Your questions were answered in the cited posts. A quick refresher:
Q:"How would she implant the aged brass particles then?"
A:""Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least several tens of years old." - Dr. Wild
However if the watch were not kept in a normal environment, but instead exposed to a strong oxidizing agent, the particles could be blackened in very short order. It's not difficult." It's not necessary to implant old ones when you can make them look old in no time.
Q:"How would she fool the scientists at Umist who dated the scratches as being so old that they must be genuine?"
A:The scientists said no such thing Peter. Allow me to quote Dr Turgoose, "They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing or artificial wearing stages." Also in one of the referenced posts. Where indeed, I explain step by step how this is possible.
"You've been promising an in depth analysis of how the watch could have been forged for a while now, but it hasn't been forthcoming."
I've already gone through the main body of points, (Oddly enough in the two posts I referenced in my last post to you) the last piece to address is how the idea/method could have been derived. I am indeed slacking on that and probably will for a while yet.
"Your "ideas" revolve around points that are of little interest or consequence."
Then why the questions?
"You can't prove the watch is a fake."
I said that way back at the very beginning. It's only a possible scenario, there is no way to prove it at this point. I do think that on the whole the evidence suggests that it is fake, but nope can't prove it.
"But the scientists at Umist can prove that the marks in the watch are decades old."
No, they can't Peter. In addition to the quote from Dr. Turgoose above where he actually explain how it could have been faked, we have this quote as well "However, whilst there is no evidence which would indicate a recent [last few years] origin of the engravings, it must be emphasized that there are no features which conclusively prove the age of the engravings." You remember Dr. Turgoose of Umist... Right?
It doesn't look like you bothered to read my posts the first time through, or after I referenced them in my last post and it's pretty plain you have even read the source material you're trying to use to support your position. (It's all in Shirley's lovely book as well as my previous posts.) Why should I be discussing it with you if your not even reading what I post Peter? You've never offered any specific objections to any of my points except to raise issues I've already discussed at length.
I'm sorry Peter, but I don't have John Omlor's time, or his patience I fear.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 04:12 am | | Hi John,
What do you make of Dr. Turgoose's opinion about the skill and awareness needed by anyone who had forged the watch recently? He wrote:
'Also, many of the features are only resolved by the scanning electron microscope, not being readily apparent in optical microscopy, and so, if they were of recent origin, the engraver would have to be aware of the potential evidence available from this technique, indicating a considerable skill and scientific awareness.'
Do you think Turgoose was wrong here, or that he was simply exaggerating the abilities the forger would have required to pull this one off?
Or do we have a suspect who, in your opinion, fits the specifications outlined by Turgoose?
Thanks.
No rush for a reply and take care of yourself over the weekend.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 07:28 am | | Hey Caz,
"So, in other words, is there any strong reason why the buffing marks Bristol saw in 1993 could not have been those made by Ron Murphy a year previously?"
It could go either way. I have reservations regarding the incidental scratches, that suggest to me that the marks might not have been there when Ron tried to polish it but I would not characterize that as a strong reason at this point.
Based on the evidence we have now I wouldn't say there is a strong reason that it could not have been the buff marks made by Ron. But there is no way to really tell either way at the moment.
"'Also, many of the features are only resolved by the scanning electron microscope, not being readily apparent in optical microscopy, and so, if they were of recent origin, the engraver would have to be aware of the potential evidence available from this technique, indicating a considerable skill and scientific awareness.'
Do you think Turgoose was wrong here, or that he was simply exaggerating the abilities the forger would have required to pull this one off?"
I think that Dr. Turgoose wasn't really thinking it through like an engineer. I think the forger would have had a degree of scientific awareness, but as far as the rest of it I simply disagree that it was necessary. I touched on it a bit in the post where I describe how the watch could have been made.
The forger would not have be aware of anything to do with electron microscopes or worry about microscopic features. Gold doesn't change over time, so all you have to do is make the sorts of marks that would be made in real world situations (Use varied tools and objects to scratch the watch with), polish it, and repeat. The same microscopic marks will happen just as they would if the marks were authentic because the physical interactions with the watch would be the same. Only in a much shorter time frame.
When you really look at Turgoose's report, it seems to be the number of polishings that give him his age estimate, I don't really think the forger needed to know what was happening at the microscopic level to polish the watch.
That having been said, I think it's very likely that the forger would have know of the existence such devices, and maybe he would have even known/guessed that one would be used. They would not need to know the technical details, but knowing that one might be used might help "keep 'em honest" and not use the same tool to create every scratch, etc.
"Or do we have a suspect who, in your opinion, fits the specifications outlined by Turgoose?"
I do think it's possible that one or more of the suspects might fit Turgoose's ideas. Layman can actually have a fair depth of scientific knowledge depending on their specific interests. I have some ideas as to where the hypothetical forger could have gotten the knowledge to do so, but I haven't sat down and tried to figure out how it would fit with our existing watch suspects. I will really try to put the rest of that together soon.
Enjoy your weekend!
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 01:12 pm | | Hi John
Now we've established that you can count to ten, maybe we'll try the alphabet tomorrow.
I pity you having flu, I've been struck down with it for a week - though pig headed as I am, I refused to take time off work. But hey, it's Friday so I may get some sleep tonight.
I appreciated your post John. I think you made your points reasonably and concisely. But I don't agree with them.
You are just speculating that the whole of the engraving surface could have been submerged in a strong oxidizing agent. Now, ask yourself how a forger would have even been aware that the brass particles were there (aged or not)? Why would the forger have thought it necessary to subject the particles to a strong oxidizing agent? This would intimate a whole lot of knowledge and intelligence of the 'forger(s)'. Albert Johnson? No, I don't think so.
Once again Caz has rushed in with the very points I wanted to make, but at least one of them bears repeating: Quoting Turgoose, Caz says:
"Also, many of the features are only resolved by the scanning electron microscope, not being readily apparent in optical microscopy, and so, if they were of recent origin, the engraver would have to be aware of the potential evidence available from this technique, indicating a considerable skill and scientific awareness".
I do, to some extent, agree with you that a 'forger' wouldn't have to be aware of these techniques. But only in so far as if the watch was just an off the cuff creation and the forger got really lucky. Apart from that, Turgoose is saying that the watch could be a forgery, but the lengths to which a forger would have had to go make the theory a non starter.
I appreciate you are being selective in your interpretations of the evidence, but you can't dismiss Turgoose so off handedly. His opinion carries weight. And if the watch is a forgery you are left with the option that AJ, a part time security guard, put the scratches in there and fooled the experts. And that to me does not make sense. Sorry, it just doesn't.
PHF posits that the watch and the diary have to be related. i.e. Either they are both genuine, or they are both forgeries. What do you think?
Regards etc
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
