|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 30
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:56 am: |       |
Sorry Ally
The gold just slipped away then? Hmmm.....my comparison and logic skills?
Regards
Paul
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
Hi, all
My sense is that the "aging" done by means of a Merseyside Brillo pad and some Brasso did its job and fooled the experts, if the scientists really do think the Maybrick scratches are decades old. Well it won't be the first time that "experts" have been hoodwinked. Remember the Piltdown hoax?
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on March 19, 2004) |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 374
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
Yes sweetie, it did...because it has been polished and rubbed and done over several times to age it and give it that lived in look if it was hoaxed and just to explore the realm of possibility here if it was old (HAH) then time and polishings and use etc. would have eroded those loose bits.
 |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Caz--Albert Johnson refers to a 'skeptical' woman from the Liverpool Post who interviewed him. Do you know whether the Post ran an article on this, and, if so, when? Thanks, RP |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 669
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
Hi, R.J.
I may be wrong about this, but it appears to me that all of the Maybrick Diary-related stories in the Liverpool Daily Post were written by Harold Brough. Perhaps Caz can address this point about whether Brough also wrote about the watch as well as the Diary itself or whether the article or research for a possible article was done by someone else at the Daily Post.
Best regards
Chris |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 31
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Hi Ally
I’m sorry if the basics here have floored you. Have a good read of the reports when you can, and all will become apparemt.
But congratulations for the most self defeating posting of the week earlier today.
It gave me fits!
Night All
Paul
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 377
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 5:59 pm: | |
Congrats Paul..you are truly a member of the Diary camp now. When you have no logical rejoinder coming up with irrelevant tangents and nonsense statements is the favored tactic of those whose reason has long abandoned them, but it's really a waste of space over all. I mean was there a point to your above post or did you just post it because you couldn't think of anything better to say?
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 206
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 6:18 pm: | |
Ally,
Why do you even come to these threads? You know you will just be insulted and then when you try to say anything back, they are not going to understand what you say to them. And believe me Hon, this is an "Us and Them" thread. That's why I almost NEVER come here.
This is IMHO and not meant to offend anyone. I merely mean that most people are either a believer or a disbeliever with very few falling in between.
Mikey |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 32
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 5:48 am: | |
Hi All
Well really. All this ranting and raving over one little Victorian pocket watch. If it weren’t so silly it would be quite sad.
Ally. Your posting is as offensive as its wrong. You have absolutely no idea of my opinion on the diary, and to place me in such a “camp” is both ridiculous and incorrect.
You quite clearly have neither followed nor understood even the basics of the conversation here, hence your self defeating posting where you have managed to successfully shoot yourself in the foot within the space of one sentence.
Try taking a leaf out of the book of someone like John Hacker, who is a non believer in both diary and watch, but who has researched his subject thoroughly and is able to put together an intelligent argument as a result. His postings deserve and get respect.
I’m afraid that to just come in here and rubbish research that people with varying opinions on the watch have spent hours working on, with facile comments like yours, and a few others, is just another sad reflection of the way those who seem scared of the diary and watch behave as certain pet hoax theories bite the dust.
I shouldn’t worry though. As it becomes all too apparent that the 1993 hoax theory simply doesn’t work any longer, I’m certain someone will come up with another one! 
Have a good weekend
Paul
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 378
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 8:15 am: | |
Paul,
Once again...lots of hot air, very little actual content. Two whole rants directed at how I have "shot myself in the foot" somehow and yet not a single example, reason or evidence how that is so. You have a problem making a simple connection between your flawed premise that observation alone is a valid means of testing/dating something and my analogy. Fine, that is a lack in your logic skills and probably can't be overcome.
And as I don't have the reports myself, I have discussed the matter with John H, and do consider myself reasonably well informed to form an a basic opinion --an opinion you will note I have not shared and I have not discussed the facts of the case. The only thing I have commented on was the one thing I have seen and can judge--your argument that observation is of sufficient worth and that testing is not required. I have made no judgements on the content of the report itself and therefore fail to see where you can claim I have not followed the conversation, "shot myself in the foot" or whatever other banal cliches you have used to not answer the point.
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 33
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 8:52 am: | |
Ok Ally.
Here’s a clue…”But that edging is just loose bits of sand that can be cleaned away or slip away over time to make it impossible to tell a month later which was drawn over which.”
Translate that into microscopic markings on gold, and then have a think about how you could tell. It might do you some good and stop you from falling into that large pit you’re digging…. 
Alternatively you could always go back and read what has all been carefully explained here, and which I have no intention of repeating. Its quite clear enough.
I don’t need hot air here, theres enough of it about already!
See you
Paul
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 379
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Darling Paul,
Surely you are not suggesting that loose bits of gold can't be cleaned away? That being rubbed with a brillo pad or other implement repeatedly might not smooth out the edges?
Because if I were making a hoaxed watch that I wanted to appear old, I would make sure that all those loose bits were cleared off and the edges smoothed down...the point being not to have the scratches look new and all.
If you have some actual facts to back up your assertions, why don't you post them rather than supplying vague "clues" and suggesting I read the threads, which I have and which illuminate nothing and do not in anyway refute the fact that simple observation is not a reliable test--unless you have actual facts to prove otherwise rather than just put downs and mis-directions?
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Chris George--Hi. My mistake. I now think it's likely that the "skeptical lady" reporter that Albert Johnson mentions was actually from the Echo and not the Daily Post. This would be the earliest account of Albert's discovery, so I think it would be of particular interest to our investigations to find this article. It must have appeared sometime in late May or early June, 1993. Cheers, RP
P.S. If anyone has this, could you please post it or email me? Thanks.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on March 20, 2004) |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 34
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
Dearest Ally
OK then. As you know it won’t be long before the watch reports are available to all, but until then it is only possible to post very short extracts on a public website.
No 1. The Maybrick scratches do exist. They have been totally unchanged by polishing as the polishing cannot and has not reached the base of the scratches. A SEN has been used to confirm this by observation alone. There is no “test” that allows you to see scratches other than the evidence of your own eyes.
No 2. It has been possible by observation of where the scratches cross, to ascertain in which order they were made. It is an impossibility to alter these crossings without the use of the SEN, and even then it would still be noticeable that tampering had occurred. Albert Johnson hasn’t got a SEN in the back bedroom to the best of all our knowledge so he can’t have tampered with them. Hence shot in the foot.
No 3. The marks of two separate watch repairers go over the top of the Maybrick scratches, hence the repair marks are later.
No 4. The gold surface of the watch was polished at some time after the Maybrick scratches were applied, but before all more recent surface scuffs. The more recent surface scuffs are polluted with hydrocarbons which result from a prolonged exposure to the environment. You can’t just plant ‘em there like you are supposed to be able to do with little heavily corroded brass particles.
The earliest supposed date for the watch scratches is April 1993. At some later time the watch surface is severely polished, partially removing scratches and removing the surface and its resultant pollutants. Hydrocarbons due to prolonged exposure to the environment are discovered January 1994. We don’t seem to have a prolonged exposure to the environment here do we?…..The one thing you really can’t fake..!…....Scratches therefore can’t be as recent as 1993. QED.
This is quite apart from all other tests confirming the self same thing.
The evidence is simply overwhelming, particularly as the only alternative is a hoax scenario that almost beggars belief in its improbability and sophistication.
In all worlds other than this one, these simple tests would have sorted the matter out years ago and the matter settled, but when common sense evaporates and denial sets in whenever the dreaded diary gets a mention, there’s little hope that will ever happen here.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend…..
Paul
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 380
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
No. 1 What evidence is there that the outer layers of the scratchings have not been changed?
No. 2 What evidence would there have been to determine whether they have been changed? What would show them to be changed? What shows them to actually go UNDER the "supposed" overlay of the other markings? If the stamp or whatever is supposedly "over" the JtR markings, how do you know that the hoaxer didn't just scratch up to the mark and then continue on the other side to make it appear older than the numbers?
No. 3 I thought it hadn't been determined what exactly those numbers were? Didn't you at first claim they were serial numbers, etc.? Are you sure what they are yet or still just guessing? And again, I have yet to see any proof that the markings go over the scratches
Where do you get that the most recent surface scuffs were polluted from hydrocarbons? The quotes so far on the boards say there are hydrocarbons on the surface of the watch but say nothing about the scratches. So you need to clarify where in the report it says the scratches which I believe were on the INSIDE of the watch, not the surface..or does the report say the surface of the inside? QED
What evidence? There is no evidence much less overwhelming at this time? There are simply assumptions and guesses and the experts did not ruledout a deliberate hoax.
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 381
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 12:38 pm: | |
Has anyone considered that a salt paste might have been used to corrode the brass particles found in the scratches. Brass corrodes easily and salt corrodes quickly and could be used to age the left over bits that would be there.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
Paul-
"Hydrocarbons due to prolonged exposure to the environment are discovered January 1994."
Now, if I understand your point, you suggest these wouldn't be present if the watch was polished by a forger, circa April 1993. However, you concede that the watch was polished by the Murphy's sometime around June or July, 1992. What gives? Doesn't this suggest that the hydrocarbons formed rather quickly? How do you know there is an appreciable difference between the hydrocarbon build-up in a scatch 9 months old compared to one 18 months old? Or am I misunderstanding your point? |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 382
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
I believe a similar point was made previously regarding the contradiction between the claim that it had not been polished recently as stated by the build-up and reported by Turgoose and that this contradicts with the known fact that Murphy polished the watch in 92. The question was glossed over by Mr. Butler, but you are quite right. Apparently the hydrocarbons did build up quite quicky and therefore, there goes that "evidence" out the window.
|
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
RJ,
I did hear a story about Robbie selling his “share” of the watch for £15,000. If it is true, it would have been a lousy investment for the “anonymous” investor, as he wouldn’t be able to sell the watch, unless Albert agreed, and so far Albert has shown no inclination to sell.
I also wonder whether there was a legal ownership document, which stated that Robbie was a co-owner, and if so, what his share was. If there wasn’t, then our mystery investor really did chuck his/her money away.
Robert |
Adam Wood
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Dear all
Sorry to be bearer of bad news, but at the time of writing we have yet to receive permission to publish the reports. As we are due to go to press at the end of today it is a distinct possibility that the reports will not appear in the March issue.
Adam
Production
Ripperologist magazine |
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
Chris Phillips
You have pointed out, that Dr Wild apparently amended his opinion on whether the levels of silver enrichment indicate a dating for the scratches.
You quote your source as Melvin Harris on the old boards (4th February 2001) and a confirmation by Shirley Harrison (6th February 2001).
The only version I saw of this passage were the words, which appeared in the final report i.e.: “This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years”. It was faxed to me by Albert Johnson’s solicitor on 2nd February 1994. Whatever the reason for the amendments re silver enrichment (and it would certainly be interesting to know it) the key point is, that Dr Wild’s Conclusion to the report provides the older dating of “at least several tens of years old”, and like Dr Turgoose’s Conclusion, it is based on an examination of the brass particles embedded in the scratches.
The complete and precise words of Dr Wild’s Conclusion in the report, dated 31st January 1994 are: “From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is at least several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work”.
There may well have been the two amendments made by Dr Wild, to which you have referred, but I am certain there were not two reports, as you suggest.
Robert Smith
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Hi Adam,
Sorry to hear about the trouble. I missed your original announcement, I'm afraid. Who is it that needs to give permission for the reports to be published?
Just wondering,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Robert Smith
I've already quoted the relevant parts of both reports, if you'd like to check the archives.
In particular, the paragraph on silver enrichment said, in the first draft:
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch.
This would suggest that the silver profile does form in a short period of time and that little can be said about the age of the scratches from this.
The overall conclusion of the first draft read:
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is probably greater than several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
In an email quoted by Shirley Harrison, Wild said:
The conclusions are the same in both reports.
[my emphasis]
While the overall conclusions are similar (though stronger in the final version), clearly the conclusions from the silver enrichment were completely different between the two versions.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 36
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
Hi to All.
It’s a real shame to read about the delay in getting the reports published, as they answer most of the points raised here quite conclusively.
Ally
“No. 2 What evidence would there have been to determine whether they have been changed? What would show them to be changed? What shows them to actually go UNDER the "supposed" overlay of the other markings? If the stamp or whatever is supposedly "over" the JtR markings, how do you know that the hoaxer didn't just scratch up to the mark and then continue on the other side to make it appear older than the numbers?”
The crucial thing you’re missing here is that the evidence for where certain scratches cross others is only seen in any detail by the SEN. Scratches in metal cause a “mounding” either side, just like a finger in sand. If another mark is scratched over an existing scratch it cuts through the mounding and goes down into the older scratch a little way. You cannot see this with the naked eye. You mustn’t forget that these scratches are tiny and very faint. This is impossible to fake without highly sophisticated equipment, and even then it would be too fine to do by hand without making a pigs ear of it.
Hence, the order in which the scratches were made, whenever that was, is indisputable.
No. 3 I thought it hadn't been determined what exactly those numbers were? Didn't you at first claim they were serial numbers, etc.? Are you sure what they are yet or still just guessing? And again, I have yet to see any proof that the markings go over the scratches.
No I’m not guessing. I’ve been in the trade over 25 years and consulted numerous colleagues over this. No I didn’t claim they were serial numbers. I was trying to see a serial number in my photo and couldn’t find one. Now I have a better photo I can see the serial No. quite clearly elsewhere. The 1275 and H 9 3 marks which go over the Maybrick marks are either repair or pawnbrokers numbers. Almost certainly the former. All practical watchmakers who have seen these marks agree, including Tim Dundas who actually repaired the watch. If the 1275 was a serial number, it would be impossibility whether James Maybrick, Albert Johnson, or Joe Bloggs did it. They would have needed a time machine as it would have been put there in 1846.
“Where do you get that the most recent surface scuffs were polluted from hydrocarbons? The quotes so far on the boards say there are hydrocarbons on the surface of the watch but say nothing about the scratches. So you need to clarify where in the report it says the scratches which I believe were on the INSIDE of the watch, not the surface.or does the report say the surface of the inside? QED”
The “surface” refers to the surface tested. The one with the scratches on it. QED
“Has anyone considered that a salt paste might have been used to corrode the brass particles found in the scratches. Brass corrodes easily and salt corrodes quickly and could be used to age the left over bits that would be there.”
Yes Ally. Lots of things have been considered, from Bronzing solutions to Vinegar. The point is that you would need to know that there were brass particles there in the first place. Only the SEN revealed this fact.
RJ
Dr Wild says that hydrocarbons need a prolonged exposure to the environment to accumulate, not me.
Nobody knows, or ever will know how many polishings this watch had, but one thing is certain. The polish the Murphys did hasn’t affected the surface scuffs to any degree, as they are still sharp. The previous polishing or polishings have wiped out the Maybrick marks entirely in places. That severe or significant polishing took the surface off the gold as it went quite deep. If that was done only a few months before the watch was tested, you no longer have a “prolonged” period for the hydrocarbons to accumulate.
Just to conclude my final say on this until the reports appear in public, I am not, and have never held that these scratches were made by Maybrick in 1889. The evidence for that is simply not there. What is clear however is that a 1993 date for a hoax is scientifically not acceptable.
Dr Wild concludes his report saying that further tests could be used to accurately date these scratches, using other dateable samples of gold to compare the silver enrichment levels between the two. He concedes that he doesn’t have data to draw more accurate conclusions from the silver enrichment tests.
Unless some philanthropist comes along to sponsor such sophisticated and expensive tests, I fear we shall learn no more from the scientists.
That these scratches are not of a 1993 date, the evidence is overwhelming. Before that time, just pick a date. You could be right.
Regards to all
Paul
|
Adam Wood
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 4:01 am: | |
Hi John
Permission to publish rests with the copyright holders, in this case those who wrote the reports and those who commissioned them.
Unfortunately we were unable to receive these permissions before print our deadline and the reports will therefore NOT be published in our March issue.
We are still hopeful of publishing in a future issue.
Regards
Adam |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
