|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through 16 July 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through 16 July 2001
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 09:03 am |        | Dear R.J.
These things are sent to test us!If I may be allowed to use "a piece of truth disguised as fiction", the bottom line in Walton Jail (in rather crude linguitics):"If you can't s--t ger off the pot". [Anon. c1993]
Anyway, how can you leave us RJ. Where else is there to go? Who understands you like we do? And who loves yer baby?
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 10:02 am | | | Although I am truly sorry for anyone who is innocent who suffers for the actions of others, I have to say that Albert, Anne and Mike are now suffering because of their own actions. They chose to come forward and expose their finds to the mean-spirited eye of public opinion and they have to live with that, as distressing as it may be. If their intentions were altruistic and they had given up the watch/diary to public opinion without holding out for financial profit or fame of any kind( a purely idealistic idea I totally understand), then I would not support questions related to their characters. However, they didn't do this. They wanted to be associated with these finds and all that would entail. Public speculation relating to the possibility of them deliberately creating a hoax is one of the things that entails. I do not think that the guilty until proven innocent method is fair however. Perhaps, rather than saying Robbie did fake it we should limit ourselves to If he did. That is really the fairest solution. Asking people to refrain from posting because it distresses the people who began the whole thing is not reasonable. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 10:08 am | | Hi R.J.
Yes, you are perfectly correct, we don't know that the journalists sat on the information so that they could scupper the movie deal and I should have phrased it better. Nevertheless, as far as we know the material would have been published but for the movie there doesn't otherwise seem to have existed any legal or moral reason for withholding it.
But even allowing for moral concerns, the information could be given to Shirley and Keith with the same stipulations as applied to Melvin. All Melvin needs to do is provide them with the name of the journalist(s) to talk to and let te journalist(s) decide what they want to do with their information. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 10:29 am | | Hi RJ,
Mike is - well, Mike really. But, when all is said and done, Mike couldn't discredit himself, to the extent of proving his own involvement, even after hiring private investigator, Alan Gray, to help him do just that. By 1996, Gray was still apparently, and somewhat inexplicably, on the job, although, according to Melvin, Mike had changed his mind about wanting to expose the diary as a hoax involving himself, believing he'd make more money if he went back to denying it all - even though Mike must have known the game was up back in 1994, if he really did lodge his incriminating Sphere book with his solicitor prior to his initial confession. (Ow, my head hurts!)
As for Anne, she has discredited herself in terms of having deceived Mike, but isn't that all anyone knows for sure, unless or until Melvin tells the Diary investigation what he knows about her role as handler/placer?
As for Albert and Robbie, doesn't Melvin's entire modern hoax theory depend on their individual or joint guilt? And therefore, doesn't he have a huge moral responsibility to make absolutely sure he has it right, when he makes statements that appear as fact, rather than speculation?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard Buchko
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 01:37 pm | | I am neither "pro-diary" nor "anti-diary. That is, I couldn't really care one whit whether it is the genuine diray of Jack the Ripper and/or James Maybrick. I have no financial stake, no intellectual stake, no reputation at stake --- in all aspects, completely un-injurable. I have stated in a few places that I think the diary is genuine BASED ON THE EVIDENCE I HAVE SEEN SO FAR. I read a lot of posts which state rather strongly that the diary is a fake, a hoax, a forgery. OKay -- why?
Now, there might be plenty of answers to this question in the thousands of posts, and I am trying to get caught up (wending my way through the insults, explanations, and opinions). But can anyone, in 100 words or less (or even 200 words or more) tell me why it is a fake? Or point me to a specific book, article, post or essay which will help me reach that conclusion?
As I said, I don't care whether it is genuine of not. I care whether we CAN TELL if it is genuine or not.
There are aspects of the diary with which I have concerns. There are also some very strong, very compelling arguments that it is real. Without engaging in character assassination, speculation, or outright guesswork, what FACTS exist to portray the diary as a hoax, which is very strongly posted here? It is called "proved", "revealed", "exposed" and many other things. But I still haven't read how or why. I may have missed a post or reply to my earier comments, so forgive me if I repeat.
I don't know anyone on the board, don't know the authors of the various books, and have no ax to grind one way or the other. I have read enough to make me think that the diary could very well be real. Who can tell me it isn't?
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 02:51 pm | | Mr. Buchko.
No one can tell you it is a fake if you choose to believe it's real. No one can convince you of anything if you choose to believe the opposite. What facts are there to prove that a god exists and yet many people choose to believe in one. There are no facts that will prove the diary is a fake. There are no facts to prove it is real. People will dispute every bit of evidence or fact offered that is contrary to their personal opinion. I am currently reading through about two years of Diary backlog in order to have a more informed opinion so I don't really have the inclination to give you a condensed version of what the boards contain. Especially since it wouldn't alter your belief one whit and supposing that I was inclined to sway your opinion one way or the other. |
Author: Jade Bakys
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 03:58 pm | | Hi Richard
read the dissertations by Melvin Harris. They are very good. I think there is conclusive proof, and it is in the writing. If you were going to fake a diary such as this what would be the hardest part? Well I should think putting in days and dates, it would be the most complicated part to fake; contradictions would occur, and a probable slip up would have been easily spotted.
There is no proof, as such but common sense prevails, it is a fake! to wade through the contentious issues at stake, such as revealing the forgers and culpability is a prooving itself much more ridiculous than the faked diary itself.
Jade |
Author: Richard Buchko
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 05:54 pm | | Dear Alegria and Jade - Thanks for replying to my post.
Alegria, you are mistaken that I could not be swayed toward believing it is a fake, if the evidence suggests it. In fact, I am asking to be swayed, since it is always best to approach these types of things with a skeptical eye. What I have read so far suggests it is real - but, as I have indicated, I have two books which are "pro-diary", so I am now looking for the other side of the story.
Jade, I thank you for pointing me toward Mr. Harris' work. I have read a couple of his works so far, but will read the rest before commenting further.
I don't see the lack of dates as being a huge issue. An issue, yes, but not definitive. I keep a journal, and don't use dates. I would definitely put a point on the "fake" side for it, but not game/set/match. The writer, if it is real, probably gave very little thought to what the date was. If its a forgery, dates would have been useful in "proving" the genuiness as much as not. IMHO
Why does common sense suggest it is a fake? I admit that I never expected to see a JTR diary, but I don't know that I could dismiss it for that.
Thanks - I'll check out his dissertations, and comment then.
Rich |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 06:22 pm | | Hi Rich,
I didn't mean to imply that you, yourself would not believe arguments to the contrary. Basically what I mean is this: Whenever anyone tries to convince someone of something that Anyone believes is true, Anyone has an agenda. Someone has to weigh whatever information they receive from Anyone against that agenda. No facts coming from anyone with an agenda are ever unbiased. A fact can be presented with a slant towards the opinion that the person telling it wants you to have. Therefore, I feel it is always best for someone to view the facts independently without influence from anothers point of view. Of course everything on these message boards are biased towards one way or the other but if you read everything there is you have more of a chance to form your own opinion. I hope I didn't confuse you as much as I did me with all that.  |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 06:32 pm | | Hi Rich:
If you have access to the facsimile of the Diary, check out the last page signed "Yours Truly Jack the Ripper" and "Dated this third day of May 1889." It looks the most artificial of all the pages, as if the forger thought, "I have to make this look good." Note that the close "Yours Truly Jack the Ripper" emulates the wording in the famous JtR letters but the handwriting is not the same. Neither is the handwriting the same as James Maybrick's. Have a look at the photographs in Paul Feldman's book and note that the handwriting does not match the memo Maybrick wrote from his Norfolk cotton office. It is true that Feldman slyly prints a letter Maybrick wrote from on board the ocean liner Baltic showing it side by side with a Dear Boss letter in which the two sets of handwriting are similar, but this is not one of the famous Dear Boss letters. The writing in the Diary matches neither of these letters. Add to this that the narrative is written in a scrapbook and not a diary, and a scrapbook moreover that has 48 pages missing, sliced out, from the beginning--why? Add furthermore that there is no evidence that gives the document a provenance, i.e., that it can be linked to Maybrick or his family. All of this should make you highly suspicious that the so-called Ripper diary is not what it purports to be.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 04:48 am | | Hi All,
Hi Richard,
Welcome.
I am guilty because I did notice your earlier post, asking for information on the Diary, and I was meaning to refer you to the dissertations section and the articles by Melvin Harris. I'm afraid I got carried away with the discussion about Melvin's privileged information, so I humbly apologise.
The Diary is thought by almost everyone here without exception to be a fake, ie not a written confession by James Maybrick. Melvin's articles are what brought me to the Casebook because I, like you, began by reading the Diary books and wanted to see the other side of the story. I thought many of Feldman's speculations plain daft, but he was just a messenger, who has often been shot in the process of shooting the message - the Diary itself.
When you wrote:
I am neither "pro-diary" nor "anti-diary."
I have no financial stake, no intellectual stake, no reputation at stake --- in all aspects, completely un-injurable.
I care whether we CAN TELL if it is genuine or not.
That could have been me talking when I first arrived here - in fact, I'm sure I said all those things.
I don't know anyone on the board, don't know the authors of the various books, and have no ax to grind one way or the other.
That also was me, back in December 1998, when I first posted here.
I do hope you continue to enjoy the mystery as much as I have.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 05:28 am | | Hi All,
Everything's very quiet on the Melvin front, isn't it?
I'm wondering if he is contacting the journalists, as we speak, to let them know the latest position. Melvin will no doubt want to treat the journalists with the fairness and respect they deserve, by putting them in the picture, and Shirley and Keith in touch with them. Melvin will simply be giving the journalists the chance to decide for themselves if they are now prepared to give their information to Shirley and Keith in confidence, just as they gave it to Melvin all those years ago.
There can be absolutely no reason why Melvin would not want this to happen - can there? RJ? Melvin? Peter Birchwood? The fly on the wall? Anyone?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 06:45 am | | Dear Caroline,
Modesty forbids me to tell you how I crucified Melvin along the Appian Way, for the wicked crime of false piety.
With his elevated gift of hindsight...he said he would give me a shout if he sees my dog "Skip".:-)
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 07:16 am | | P.s.
This pre-emptive action was carried out by the "Popular Front for Little Persons", on behalf of the distressed folk of Fairy Glen. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 08:39 am | | Dear Caz--
To answer your question, Why do you now defend Melvin's refusal to meet Shirley & Keith?
First off, taking ten paces backwards and looking at this from a distance, this is not what I've been defending. This is entirely a private matter. If anyone wants to have fish & chips and talk shop that's their business.
What I've objected to is this:
1. That this whole 'diary debate' has been reduced to 'What Melvin knows and refuses to say'. This is utterly backwards.
2. That Melvin Harris's refusal to reveal his information is somehow 'evasive' or shows his 'credibility is faltering'. This is absurd as well, and, I might add convenient. How can it possibly be argued that Melvin Harris has been evasive? He has written thousands of words on the diary, and given many many sound arguments as to how he has come by his opinions. The argument is absurd. Please answer his objections.
3. That because Melvin has professional reasons for not revealing what he knows, the 'old forgery' theorists do not have to present their case. Am I the only one that thinks this is somewhat convenient???? This might sound a little rude, but it isn't meant to be. But the 'old forgery'
theory really doesn't have an argument--only a counter argument. The 'debate' is all well & good if things focus on some point made by Melvin or by Peter Birchwood, etc., because these points can be reduced to their minutea and argued endlessly. But when someone sensible like Karoline asks bluntly for the 'old forgery' theorists to state their case, she is told that she is 'missing the point'. Now I am told that I, too, am 'missing the point', the only thing now important is Melvin to reveal his information. When are you going to tell me why you think this is an old document????
4. That there is a difference between revealing forgery and revealing the forgers. Yes, my thought on this have become more refined over the past months. The change mainly dates back to Melvin's 'Cottingly Fairy' post in June. Exposing a document that claims to be authentic is a public matter. Dragging alot of dirt out is into the light won't do anyone any good.
There is one final point. It might sound a little rude, but again, it isn't meant to be. But perhaps it needs to be asked. Is Melvin's cooperation really needed? I find this hard to believe. Surely Feldman's agressive investigation tried to find out what Alan Grey was looking into. Melvin Harris has already given precisely 4/5ths of his scenerio. If Keith & Shirley really want to know, couldn't they find out for themselves, without Melvin's help? Why discredit the man, and make him seem like he's being evasive??
Best wishes,
RJP |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 09:14 am | | 1. The whole diary debate has not been reduced to what Melvin knows. Right now we are discussing who the forgers are, a topic that interests us even if it does not interest you. If you aren't interested in this aspect of the diary, you are free to open another line elsewhere. This is what we are interested in and there is someone who claims to have that information. So this line of questioning has been reduced to what Melvin knows since he claims to have the answers we seek.
2. If someone asks me a question, not once but several times, and I continue to post on every thing in the world except what I have been asked(even to say I will not answer) what else can I be called but evasive? That pretty much is the definition of evasive. I may have a perfect right to be evasive and that is my prerogative but I am still being evasive and people will judge me for it.
3. Again, the old-forgery theorists are not what is being discussed here. Not to say that it can't be. Right now we are asking for proof that it is a new forgery which is what he claims it to be. So if you are interested in challenging the old-forgery theorists, feel free to do so.
4. I would like to ask this again: I am genuinely curious as to the number of fakes/hoaxes that have been exposed to the satisfaction of the majority of persons involved which do not reveal the identity of the hoaxer. And the plain and bald truth of it is this: if the hoaxer didn't want their dirt hauled into the public eye, well they shouldn't have hoaxed it now should they have? |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 09:30 am | | Hi R.J.P.
If I ask you to explain something, you don't explain it by asking me to explain something. But that is exactly what Karoline did. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but that is precisely what happened. But, hey, it's water under the bridge, so let's not make such a big thing out of it.
The present situation is really simple and doesn't need all this angst and argument. Melvin claims to possess information which Shirley and Keith think is central and crucial to their theories. It would be wonderful if Melvin would make this information publicly available because then it could be assessed by everyone, but he claims to be legally constrained from doing so (apparently among other reasons). Shirley and Keith have therefore asked him if he would make it available to them privately and in front of a jointly agreed independent assessor. Melvin has refused. Now they would like Melvin to divulge the names of the journalists who provided him with the information. The journalists can then decide what they want to do with their information. I can't see why Melvin or anyone should have a problem with this.
So let's stop all this discussion about Karoline and Peter and the morality of identifying forgers and speculating about what Paul Feldman may or may not know or trying to figure out whether Melvin's information should be important to Shirley and Keith or not. Why don't we just quietly sit back and let's Melvin either tell or refuse to tell Shirley and Keith who the journalists are. |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 11:58 am | | Hi Richard
I say 'common sense' because that is how I have reasoned the non-provenance of the diary so far, so I will rely on sound practical understanding based on what I know of Jack the Ripper history and what I have discerned from the Maybrick Diary. You should try answering your own question the other way round, how do you prove the diary is real. The question is ambivalent either way.
Best Wishes
Jade |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 03:08 pm | | Hi RJ,
I'm sorry, but I'm with Paul on this one. You stated your opinion that both ‘sides’ should get together in private to work on a resolution. Shirley and Keith have done their bit - Melvin doesn’t want to know. And your reaction is to shrug and say you now have no opinion as it’s none of your business. I just don’t understand – you sound, well, different somehow. Would you have said the same if Melvin was the one agreeing to meet, and Shirley or Keith were refusing to play ball?
But, to address your points as best I can.
1. It only looks utterly backwards from your own perspective - you already believe the diary has been proved a modern fake. You apparently cannot conceive how anyone could arrive at a different conclusion from your own. But Keith and Shirley clearly have, and are the ones who need convincing, because, with Melvin’s help, along with that of the independent assessor, they would be the ones with enough power to put an end to the diary and the conflict.
2. I agree with Alegria on this one. How can you possibly argue with a straight face that Melvin has not been evasive? For starters, how about all the ducking and diving over when Mike Barrett was supposed to have lodged the Sphere book, after Melvin told us in no uncertain terms that it was LONG BEFORE June 1994, but had to admit, after an awful lot of prodding, that he just didn’t have a firm date? If that wasn’t being evasive, as well as attempting to strengthen his case against Mike with ‘facts’ that he knew could not be backed up, I’m a Dutchman. And the word ‘convenient’ has sprung to my mind on almost every occasion that Melvin has explained why his statements cannot be accompanied by the proof.
3. For the umpteenth time, no one has published, or is arguing for, an ‘old forgery’ theory, as far as I know! It’s not a matter of not having to present ‘their’ case, whoever ‘they’ are. It would simply be an absurdity to put one together, while Melvin claims to hold conclusive proof against it. Surely you can see that, since you believe he does have the proof? And to reiterate: I just don’t know if the diary is old or not. How can I tell you why I think it’s an old document, if I don’t know what to think? What do you want me to say?
4. Exposing the diary as a fake is one thing. The dragging of the dirt into the light automatically comes with the territory of trying to expose it specifically as a modern fake. I don’t know how you can fail to see the distinction.
Time for a nice Harvey Wallbanger I think.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 04:33 pm | | Hi, Caz:
Make it two Harvey Wallbangers, Caz. I will gladly join you.  Incidentally, I think you will find that both Keith Skinner and Paul Begg have spoken of the possibility that the Diary is an old forgery. You might want to check with them. Meanwhile, cheers!
Chris |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 02:43 am | | Paul--o.k. I give in. But my point isn't about 'water under the bridge'. My point is about who is evading what.
Caz--Hello. Good morning. I think I'm getting Battle-crease fatigue. We've locked horns for nearly a year. Please, don't be coy. I tossed you the Red diary. You gave me 'Mike's research'. I suggested the '7 Best Reasons' (or was it 8?), you immediately gave me counter-arguments. I reiterated McCormick. You gave me The Mikado. Remember 'women's intuition' and all that? You've always argued this was an old document, why not admit it?
Cheers,
RJP
PS. You answered all but my last questions yesterday. Do Y'all really need Melvin Harris? He's obviously not giving in. Surely you can do your own research?
Alegria--Hi. Speaking of evasion... Could you answer the questions from my recent posts? Since you haven't the faintest idea what Melvin's private information is, why do you suspect the worst? Can't you merely accept the fact that he can't tell you? Why should he break his professional code for the sake of your curiosity?
(Believe it or not, we all are really very pleasant people, and hardly ever argue with strangers:-))
RP |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 06:27 am | | | I am not evading anything. If you check my posts I have not asked for him to reveal his privileged information. I have asked him to tell us the names of the journalists who originally found the information so that we may contact them in the hopes of learning what he cannot tell us. And I do have a faint idea what his information is; he has told us: the names of the forgers. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 06:30 am | | R.J.P.
I understand what you were trying to do, but there isn't a comparison because nobody was being evasive with Karoline. Her question was off topic and nobody wanted to get sidetracked. Melvin is perceived as being evasive, not just by me but by others without any axe to grind.
But this can all be settled simply and easily by Melvin identifying the journalists and letting them decide what they want to do with their information.
And to answer your question, it is possible that research could identify the journalists, but why can't Melvin simply tell us who they were? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 06:42 am | | Hi Chris
I have indeed spoken of an old forgery and I was probably the first to do so, but I have no theory about it being one. I have doubts about Mike's involvement - he has never been able to give a coherent account of hos the forgery was conceived and executed, so was he actually involved? If he wasn't, we have to explain how he came by he 'diary', why he was chosen as a patsie and so on and on... Trying to figure out the permutations just gives me a headache, so I wonder whether Anne's story, unlikely though it certainly sounds and problematic though it is in so many other ways, really might possibly be true. Keith, who has spent an awful lot of time with her and observed her responses to all manner of questions in all manner of conditions believes her. I am not speaking for him, but I guess belief in Anne coupled with various other considerations convince him. But there aren't theories, just feelings, and it isn't or doesn't appear to be a possibility that people have explored. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 06:49 am | | Hi RJ,
OK, I give in. If Melvin refuses to reveal the journalists' names, allowing them to decide what to do with their own info; and if time goes by, with more and more people thinking the only possible explanation is that the proof may not be what it's cracked up to be; then, and only then, I may decide it worth while going back to exploring the possibility that the diary is not a modern forgery after all, and not - as Melvin has asserted - dreamed up and composed mainly by A.N. Other, hand-written by someone outside his/her immediate circle (but not apparently in Tony Devereux’s hand, nor Anne's, nor Mike's), and passed to Anne and Mike to place, after one or other of them provided the ‘O costly...' quote, and possibly the Mrs. Ham(m)ersmith reference. (My head’s beginning to throb again, and haven’t three people now become at least four? And doesn't this mean that Melvin would say the little red 1891 diary must be a little red 1992 herring, unless Mike bought it for A.N. Other and his or her penpal's use, as late as March 1992??)
The argument is a powerful one, in my view, that further exploration now, on the boards, is a complete waste of my, and everyone else's, time.
I have to accept that you won't be drawn to comment on why Melvin couldn't or wouldn't reveal the journalists' names, even to someone totally independent, for example, to be agreed by all parties - someone who could have no possible vested interest in keeping the material out of reach of Shirley or Keith.
So you'll just have to accept why I'm not going to be arguing for an 'old forgery' here at this time.
Love,
Caz |
Author: David Halstead
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 09:11 am | | Just got through with reading too many messages so will try and keep this short.
IMHO (and this really is just conjecture) Mr Harris cannot disclose the details of the newspaper as they could then be forced to publish all that they know. I understand that a similar scenario was followed by litigation between the Independent and Sunday Times when the 'diary' was originally dismissed. This precedent would immediately mean that the newspaper would have to publish. Therefore, Mr Harris is not going to reveal to anyone the details of the newspaper until such time as he is happy for the world to know the 'truth' that he holds.
It also seems clear to me that Alan Grey is likely to have been the one to uncover the fakers. If not, I think that he is certainly the link. I note from Mrs Harrisons' latest edition that she had attempted to see Mr Grey but that he had been warned off due to a 'conflict of interests'. This parlance is a well-known brush off used by most in the legal profession to avoid difficult situations.
There also appears to be a significant link with Spain. I am still looking in to this one further so will not issue any misleading statements yet.
Once again, the above is mostly 'gut-instinct' and no doubt can be proved incorrect.
I must add that I am more intrigued by the identity of the fakers then the actual diary itself.
Thanks to the regular contributors for a fascinating read.
David |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 09:39 am | | Hi David
As Melvin pointed out, the information is the property of the newspaper and the newspaper can do what it likes with it, so I doubt that it could be forced into publishing anything. Secondly, basically Shirley and Keith simply wanted to know what the information is and they were prepared to accept the same terms of secrecy as presumably applied to Melvin. Melvin could have agreed to name the newspaper in confidence or assisted in some other way. He did not do so. Shirley has not heard any word from Melvin about whether he has forwarded her letter to the newspaper. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 11:21 am | | Good Morning Everyone,
It is raining here, so I thought I might amuse myself by saying a few words about the watch.
These were prompted by Mark, over on the diary board, getting me to think again about the timing of its appearance and the science.
I confess to having no scientific background and I certainly know nothing at all about engraving or metallurgy, so I will readily bow to the knowledge of others.
First of all, in the name of honesty, I must say that it has struck me over the past year reading this site, that although people (including myself) are more than ready, willing, and able to talk about the diary and its scenarios and players until the proverbial cows find their way back to their proverbial homes, no one wants to talk much about the watch.
Now I always figured that this was just because the whole thing was so unbelievable -- the watch being a ladies' watch and the timing being so strangely convenient and the Johnson's stories and backgrounds being so hazy and everything -- that people simply had dismissed it from their minds.
But then, the more I thought about it, the more I thought that there were still some things that needed explaining, even if we assume the watch is a fake. And there are still some potentially serious consequences for the the whole diary question depending on how we answer some questions about the watch.
The link is obvious.
In fact, Robert Smith has written that the scientific report on the watch itself rules out the possibility that the diary could be a recent forgery. (Hyperion Edition of the Diary, p.204)
Is he right?
First of all, Dr. Turgoose's report is very, very clear.
It explicitly states that the watch could be a recent forgery, but if it is, the only way it could be is if the recent forger had access to and a knowledge of a complicated series of artificial aging and wearing techniques and that this forger would have had to have been aware of the "potential evidence" made available by the scanning of an electron microscope, "indicating a considerable skill and scientific awareness."
Is he right?
Dr. Turgoose's conclusion, of course, is that the engravings are "likely to date back more than tens of years and possibly much longer."
This was 1993.
So that would mean, at the very least, that the engravings are likely to date back to 1983 or before.
1983.
But the "tin match box empty" line and the Sphere Guide and a bunch of the other stuff oft-cited in the diary debate would not have been available in 1983.
How do we resolve this?
If the watch was made before 1983 and the diary was made after 1987 (as many people believe), did the diarist know there was a watch sitting in some jeweller's store for at least five years that had markings that named Maybrick as Jack?
Then why had the watch not surfaced until after the diary became public?
Is this just some incredible coincidence where two people in the same part of the world had the same idea to forge an item saying James Maybrick was the Ripper and they knew nothing about each other?
Is Dr. Turgoose simply wrong, and is there any scientific or material evidence that would allow us to claim with confidence that the watch was made after 1987 despite his conclusions?
I have read Melvin's thoughts on this matter -- but he offers no real scientific or material evidence that the watch was made after 1987, as far as I can see.
So I was just wondering if anyone else still wondered about any of these things.
Have a fine, fine day,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 11:41 am | | Hi John,
My own reading of it all is that, for the diary to be a modern forgery, the watch scratchings have to have been made after the diary was first mentioned in the press - never mind what the science can or can't tell us. A joint modern hoax seems out of the question, because there is no evidence that the Barretts and the Johnsons knew of each other's existence before it all became public. If the watch markings are genuinely old, the diary has also to be old. So, the only acceptable scenario - to the 'modern' theorists - has always been, as far as I'm aware, that the watch had to be a bandwagon hoax, inspired by mischief, fun or publicity (but again, not apparently fortune - at least not yet). Even Martin Fido is perplexed by an artefact, which he would swear was historically bogus, yet which has two independent and supposedly reputable scientists saying is decades old.
The bottom line is that, according to Melvin Harris, the scientists must have been misled or mistaken. No ifs or buts or maybes.
If you want my opinion, that's why the thing is talked about as little as possible.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 11:57 am | | Hi again,
I meant to add that, interestingly, contrary to early expectations, and the fact that Melvin thinks the watch could have been doctored very cheaply and quickly, there have been no further 'bandwagon' artefacts. A while ago, I was thinking of embroidering a Victorian hankie with FM, and writing on it in blood 'Jack's whore', but I lost my thimble - and my bottle.....darn it. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 02:00 pm | | The bottom line is there is no way to date a scratch.
The other bottom line is there is no way to date darkened brass.
The third bottom line is there is has been no proof offered to say which undatable scratches the two specks of undateable dark brass were found in. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 03:39 pm | | So the bottom line is that no one knows when the scratches were made or if they were made before or after the diary was written.
And the scientific conclusions of Dr. Turgoose (see above) are presumptive and invalid as anything more than mere speculation.
You know, if I was someone just arriving and reading these boards, I would be amazed at how often the "scientists" are "wrong" according to some people.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 04:05 am | | Hi, Caz:
The crucifix that was allegedly with the Diary in the Graham family's famous tin trunk with the tropical gear might be arguably a "bandwagon artifact" albeit that it was in the possession of the woman (Anne Graham) who said her family owned the Diary for decades and was not brought forth by another party wishing to cash in on the Maybrick-as-the-Ripper possibility. The crucifix, in my view, seems to have been produced to lend veracity to the claim for the Diary. As such, I think the crucifix also bears further investigation.
The bible given by Maybrick to Sarah Robertson, containing the inscription from him to "Piggy" dated August 2, 1865 is another artifact, though I am not sure anyone would contend it is a bandwagon artifact and I do not believe its authenticity is challenged. Feldman's hardback shows a picture of it and states that the owner is Barbara Bills, whose mother Alice Bills had inherited the bible from Sarah Robertson who had lodged with the Bills family in her last years. These connections were traced by Keith Skinner.
Caz, I may be taking this quote out of context but I wanted to question you about your statement that "If the watch markings are genuinely old, the diary has also to be old." Why so? Why couldn't the watch have given someone the idea for the Diary, instead of the other way round? I don't mean that Maybrick was the Ripper necessarily but that someone as a lark decided to put the scratches in the watch, say Bobo Maybrick messing round with mummy's watch one day decided to finger papa.... or whatever scenario you want to choose for the scratches being old. I think personally that the scientific findings are misleading and flawed and that the watch scratches are relatively new, but an old scenario such as the one I posit I suppose could be case.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 05:50 am | | Hi RJ,
You wrote:
'The bottom line is there is no way to date a scratch.
The other bottom line is there is no way to date darkened brass.'
Perhaps you should have been around to tell this to the good scientists, Wild and Turgoose, before they set about testing the watch and making their reports. You are obviously better qualified to give an opinion - or at least more honest, in that it would have saved anyone forking out for the opinion of these two specialists.
Sorry to be blunt, but I don't understand why you feel you have to automatically reject what both had to say about the scratches being decades old.
Hi Chris,
I think it was Feldy who tried to make something of the crucifix, and connect it with the diary somehow. This may have been precisely what Anne intended when she produced it, but I recall Keith telling me that it wasn't Anne who ever suggested a connection between the two items.
By 'old', I meant anything pre-1987. Obviously, if both diary and watch are really old, or even Victorian, we could start speculating all sorts about which might have come first, how long between each, and whether different people were involved etc etc. But that's a whole new ball game for another time, and perhaps another place....
Love,
Caz |
Author: adam wood
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 03:50 pm | | Hi there
Those interested in the Diary and watch will be interested to learn that we are hopeful of having both on display at the forthcoming Ripper conference in Bournemouth, along with the actual Dear Boss letter and Insp. Abberline's walking stick.
Anyone who's been holding off booking until the last minute should note that there are just 10 rooms left at the conference hotel; book now to avoid having to stay at the overspill hotel!
Regards, Adam
www.ripperconference.co.uk |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 09:58 pm | | "You know, if I was someone just arriving and reading these boards, I would be amazed at how often the "scientists" are "wrong" according to some people."
John--Come now-- coming from such an impartial and careful writer, is that a fair statement to make? Who are you referring to? Which scientists are wrong? Dr. Baxendale who said the ink was so soluble that it gave up color while he watched? The scientists at Analysis for Industry who said the diary ink contained chloracetamide? The scientists that said Rod McNeil's dating process had insurmountable technical difficulties? Or are you only referring to the scientists that you happen to agree with? Are you implying that "the" scientists are in agreement on the forensic evidence? Are you implying that no one on this board has challenged the findings of Baxendale or Analysis for Industry?
Is this an example of what you consider unbiased or careful writing?
Caz--I don't mind you being blunt. But how exactly do you think scratches on the inside cover of a watch can be dated scientifically? I presume by them being underneath the expected 'wear & tear' scratches that lay on top of them. But how does one know when those 'wear & tear' scratches were placed on top? And how on earth does the inside cover of a watch get wear & tear'? If there is a way to date darkened brass, please explain it to me. And, I still repeat, no one has ever said which of the scratches the two brass particles were in. Obviously if they were in the jeweler's marks this would be less than impressive. [I don't know--I'm asking] RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 07:07 am | | Hi RJ,
I can't think of a single scientist involved in this case that hasn't been accused by someone at some time of being "wrong" or "misled" or mistaken" or "misinformed," etc.
That includes Easthaugh, Voller, AfI, McNeil, Roberts, Baxendale, and, of course Turgoose.
That's what I meant. The scientists whose various findings have supported either side at one time or another have all been claimed to be wrong, by one side or the other, whenever necessary.
It all just strikes me a bizarre and makes it clear how little the science has actually helped us -- how little real evidence it has given us and how very little anyone can claim to know from it.
Take the scratches, for instance. I mean, here we have a report from a "scientist" that is very clear in its conclusion: either the engravings are tens of years old or older or they were forged by someone who had to have been aware of the "potential evidence" made available by the scanning of an electron microscope, "indicating a considerable skill and scientific awareness."
But now I learn that he too was simply "wrong."
And the pattern is repeated.
I was making note, RJ, of the fact that if I was a new reader in all of this I would be surprised how often all of these scientists are allegedly "wrong" or how some of the scientists are called wrong by some of the people sometimes and others are called wrong by other people at other times.
And, as a result, I would be surprised at how very little anyone actually knows for certain about any of this and how very little evidence actually exists.
It's strange and striking.
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 08:29 am | | Nice save, John. But I'm not quite willing to buy it.
Your curious observation came directly after my post.
"And the scientific conclusions of Dr. Turgoose (see above) are presumptive and invalid as anything more than mere speculation."
So John, you weren't being ironic at that point? Or are you admitting Turgoose's conclusions ARE presumptive & invalid? Which is it?
You see, John, I remember you pulling the same stunt in the past with Karoline. You repeatedly claimed that either her views or Eastaugh's views were valid, while Caz chimed in that it was amazing how the scientists were doubted! Much like she did above with me:
'Perhaps you should have been around to tell this to the good scientists, Wild and Turgoose, before they set about testing the watch and making their reports. '
This is commonly known as an "appeal to authority". Don't argue the issues, just point out that the other debater disagrees with the experts.
But if you're now admitting that some of the scientist (who are not in agreement) MIGHT be wrong --including Turgoose--- then I'm willing to drop the matter. RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 08:53 am | | Hi RJ,
I don't know what you are not willing to buy, but I meant just what I said. It seems to me strange and amazing how all of the scientists in this case have at one time or another been accused of being "wrong."
My remarks to Karoline were quite different. She was saying something different than what Easthaugh had explicitly said. Therefore, it was simply and logically true that either her views or Easthaugh's views (or neither, I suppose) were valid. They could not both be. That's a different argument all together.
You ask me about my initial comment regarding your suggestion that Turgoose was wrong.
"So John, you weren't being ironic at that point? Or are you admitting Turgoose's conclusions ARE presumptive & invalid? Which is it?"
Neither.
I was not being ironic. I was being amazed. I have no idea whatsoever whether Turgoose's conclusions are presumptive and invalid. (Please see the PS below.) But I had seen, once again, another scientist being called "wrong" and this trend or pattern -- from all sides -- amazed me.
It still does.
Finally, you make this generous offer:
"But if you're now admitting that some of the scientist (who are not in agreement) MIGHT be wrong --including Turgoose--- then I'm willing to drop the matter."
No problem there, RJ.
I'm more than willing (and ready and able) to admit that ALL the scientists might very well be wrong about everything! And I have no way of knowing. I have no particular faith in science in general. I think much of it, much more than they'd care to admit, is involved and ideological speculation masquerading as objective discovery. I think the findings are obviously contradictory and suspect, and they tell us almost nothing at all.
I have said this repeatedly by the way. The science, like everything else in this case, gives us contradictory conclusions and preferred interpretations and cannot be considered as reliable, material evidence of anything at all.
I've written that so many times in so many places that attentive readers should know it by heart.
So you get no argument from me. You just get, as I've said, an expression of amused wonder that the science is of so little help in any of this.
No irony, RJ. Sorry.
--John
PS: If you happened to have read my earlier remarks to Mark about the watch, on the other Diary board, you might remember that I told him that my "best guess" was that the watch was made after the diary, late 1980's probably. So I had already speculated, directly, that the science was wrong here too.
Here is what I wrote to Mark on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 04:58 pm:
"My best guess at the moment would be that the watch was somehow produced after the diary was composed, post-'87, and that the science is mistaken when it says the scratches are older."
See?
Check that post out, RJ. I think it was pretty clear. You might find it interesting. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 11:06 am | | Hi RJ,
I couldn't for the life of me work out why you were suggesting that John only agreed with those scientists whose tests indicated the diary and/or watch were old, when he has repeatedly stated that, like you, he believes both are recent fakes!
All I thought he meant was that, in the case of the watch, Wild and Turgoose both had to be "wrong", otherwise the modern theorists would be wild 'cos their goose would be cooked - just as, in the case of the diary, any scientist claiming the ink was put on the paper recently would be pronounced "wrong" by the Maybrickites on the other side of the wall.
You ask me how I think the watch scratches can be dated scientifically, and if there is a way to date darkened brass. Honestly, RJ, I don't know - I'd have to take the advice of a scientist - I'm not one myself. But if you are right, and there is no way to test for age, I'm disgusted that no one bothered to tell Shirley and Albert this rather basic truth before they parted with their cash in return for information that no one could have provided. You are clearly suggesting the watch scientists were either downright incompetent (and knew less than you about what was possible to test for) or taking money under false pretences. And if I ever fork out for tests that you later tell me everyone else knows simply can't be done, I shall ask you to help me get my money back!
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
