|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 9:10 am: |       |
Chris,
Fair enough - the forger was not clever I agree they made a glaring error of judgement.
Spelling that could be intentional. implying this because of the letters they are trying to link to. ?
Anyhow
John O.
where is this diary world shop it sounds great!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Jennifer
There's no disputing the diary is a very strange document. I don't think it can be denied it has an interest of its own.
The problem is that the question of who forged it, and when, has continually been muddled up with the question of whether it is genuine - in other words, whether Maybrick wrote it, and was Jack the Ripper.
Most people agree that there is overwhelming evidence against the genuineness of the diary. (To take one example, I believe Paul Begg, who has recently been quoted here, is not in any doubt that the diary is a fake.)
There could, in theory, be an interesting discussion about whether the diary is an old fake or a new fake (though I think the evidence - "tin match box", "costly intercourse", etc - is overwhemingly in favour of its having been faked in or after the late 1980s).
What I object to is the continuing pretence that the diary could be genuine. Nearly everyone who has looked into this seriously has concluded it's a fake.
The "tin match box" difficulty is only one of a couple of dozen reasons that the proposition that James Maybrick was the author, and was Jack the Ripper, is demonstrably false.
Admittedly, every one of these objections can be explained away, along the lines Caz has already demonstrated.
Today's attempt at an explanation involved a Victorian businessman paying a prostitute with a matchbox; the police - by means of telepathy or otherwise - detecting that the matchbox on her body belonged to the murderer; and the murderer - also by means of telepathy or otherwise - reproducing the exact phrase used in the police report to describe the matchbox.
This is clearly fantasy.
But that's not all - if James Maybrick is to be the author of the diary and the Ripper, all the other difficulties have to be explained away. The explanations given include multiple personality disorder (to explain why the handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's), amnesia (to explain why Maybrick doesn't remember the details of the murders), police conspiracy to commit perjury (to explain the alleged suppression of evidence relating to the alleged farthings found in Hanbury Street), other conspiracy theories (to explain why the police would have invented evidence that Kelly's key had been lost rather than stolen), and so on and so forth.
When all these wildly unlikely "explanations" are combined together, the result is impossibility, mathematically speaking.
I can only wonder at the motives of those who continue to claim Maybrick could have been Jack the Ripper.
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi, Caz
If your idea about the match box as a gift was true, we could expect confirmation from John Kelly on this, but we have none.
Another problem is that an empty match box fits the context of the other items in Kate's pockets--odds and ends picked up against a rainy day. It's not out of place in her pocket, which I would expect would be the case with a stranger's gift.
A third problem is that surely Kate's whole purpose in prostituting herself would be for money and not for trinkets. Why, out of all the items she's carrying, are those pawntickets of all things out on the ground?
Dave
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Chris
thanks for your enlightening post.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Sarah Mitchell
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
Hi everyone,
Im new to message boards and i just want to say that after reading all your messages that you all make incredibly good points.
I think that the diary is a fake because when would Jack the Ripper have time to go and buy a diary and then write in it?
If any of you have any answers on this then please let me know.
My thoughts about when would he have had the time to get a diary and write in it is he wouldnt.
He probably had a job, to keep appearences up and he would have had to do his job and be there everyday so how would he have had time to do a job, plan his killings, find his next victim, and write a diary and send loads of letters to the police. He couldnt have done it unless he was an incredibly talented man by doing all this and still acting normal.
If this diary is a fake then we still need to consider who wrote this diary and why?
What was this person trying to achieve by writting it and what was he getting out of it?
If anyone has any answeres please let me know.
Sarah Mitchell. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 7:35 am: | |
Hi All,
Hi Chris,
Nicely squirmed.
If John O’s posts are so ambiguous that you, his most ardent fan, can’t tell when he’s being serious or just playing silly buggers, because you really thought he was using Feldy’s ripper expertise to support some rhetorical – and ultimately pointless - argument about the Eddowes list not being available before 1987, I won’t need to reach for the smelling salts every time he makes things up, will I? I shall assume that no one else here has a prayer of understanding what he’s really going on about either. Nice one.
For example, John O’s claim that I keep saying, month after month, that I don’t want the diary to be examined again, or that it should never be examined again, is pure fiction. I have said no such thing, not even once, and it is certainly not an opinion I hold.
I have simply observed that those who have already expressed an ‘unshakeable’ belief that the diary is a post-1987 fake, or that the watch is a post-1992 bandwagon hoax, will always, by definition of the word ‘unshakeable’, reject any test results that appear to be inconsistent with those beliefs. Likewise, if there is anyone who would never accept the diary as being anything other than genuine (we could presume that Feldy falls into that category, but I don’t know who else would), they too would reject any test that favoured a post-1889 creation.
This observation of mine will not put a stop to the ongoing investigative process, even if I wanted it to, which I don’t. In fact, I have been trying to arrange a further examination of the diary myself, and on my own initiative, as a few readers were already aware. I have no idea whether my efforts will eventually bear fruit, but, as John O is always so fond of saying, if we don’t try we won’t find out.
But it seems that while some of us are trying to get the diary tested again, and I am getting my hands burned here on a daily basis for information and observations freely offered, one or two of the people doing the daily burning are just trying, period. 
Chris, I didn’t seriously expect you to accept that the killer knew an empty tin match box was among Eddowes’ personal effects. My ‘argument’, if you want to call it that, can be reduced to a suggestion that you consider the possibility that he knew. You’ve considered and rejected this possibility, which is your right. But I gave you ample warning that I had no verifiable explanation; no need for you to get so tetchy about it if everyone else shares your view that there is absolutely no possibility that the diary author didn’t lift those four words straight from the official case records.
Hi John,
Since no one argued that Maybrick could have seen the police list, and this has already been pointed out in plain English, it’s more than dumb to keep saying they did, in the forlorn hope that your readers are so dumb they won’t even notice what you’re doing here.
And thanks for reminding me about your funny little ‘differance’ joke, which no doubt Dee appreciated was not made at her expense. I was actually recalling at least three previous examples of the academic pot calling the kettle black, but never mind – I don’t expect you to recall everything you write, any more than Chris expects to follow everything you write.
I know you don’t have to count my words yourself. What some might find slightly puzzling is why you ‘have’ to count my words at all, but whatever turns you on I guess.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Ok, Let's just try this and see what happens:
Caroline,
Is the diary authentic or is it a fake?
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 8:35 am: | |
Caz
Chris, I didn’t seriously expect you to accept that the killer knew an empty tin match box was among Eddowes’ personal effects. My ‘argument’, if you want to call it that, can be reduced to a suggestion that you consider the possibility that he knew. You’ve considered and rejected this possibility, which is your right. But I gave you ample warning that I had no verifiable explanation ...
Well, of course it's not verifiable!
The question is, do you think it's remotely plausible? Do you expect anyone to swallow it?
If not, it's really no explanation at all. Far from being "tetchy" about this, I'm quite happy that you've given it your "best shot", and everyone can see how far-fetched the result is.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 6:18 pm: | |
Hi John,
Why are you asking me? I thought you were claiming to know.
Hi Chris,
No, I already said, I don't expect anyone to 'swallow' anything. Either it's possible, that the killer knew an empty tin match box was on Eddowes' person, or it's not. I admire your confidence, because I could never claim to be as sure as you claim to be that it's not.
I also already said that it's no explanation, just a possibility you may wish to consider. My 'position' could best be summed up as this: 'If you are so sure of your position that nothing would force you to reconsider, that's fine, but then what are you actually debating here?'
My 'best shot' at what? I'm making no claims, nor giving 'it' any 'shots'. I'm happy to leave that sort of thing to others.
Why you consistently fail to see this is beyond me. Perhaps it's what John calls desire. You want me to claim something so you can argue against it.
Well you'll just have to want.
Always good to leave 'em wanting, or so I've heard.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
OK, so that didn't work.
Let's try it another way.
Caroline,
The diary was:
_____ written by the real James Maybrick
_____ not written by the real James Maybrick
You can just copy the bit above and paste it into a message, typing an X next to one of those two lines.
Is that simpler?
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 3:34 am: | |
Caz
As you're well aware, your scenario, or hypothesis - or whatever you want to call it to avoid the word "explanation" - involved a lot more than the bare possibility "that the killer knew an empty tin match box was on Eddowes' person". It involved paying for sex with a matchbox, an amazing leap of deduction by the police that the matchbox found on Eddowes had been given to her by her killer, and above all, the remarkable coincidence that the diarist used the same phrase as the unpublished police inventory.
By leaving all that other stuff out, surely you can see that your latest post is very misleading to people.
If you have no explanation to offer, fine, but please don't put forward half an explanation, and confuse the issue by insisting it is possible, even though you yourself won't go so far as to say it's plausible.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 11:52 am: | |
Chris,
possible plausible what's the difference just a couple of letters, aren't you forgetting about when you have eliminated the impossible what your left with however implausible MUSt be the truth (sic)?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Jennifer
I have to disagree - I think that the difference between possible and plausible is the key to the whole question of the diary.
Whenever faced with evidence against the diary's authenticity, the pro-diarists come up with a possibility to explain it. It doesn't seem to matter to them that some of these possibilities are wildly improbable. So long as they can think of possible way out, they are happy to say, "So you can't absolutely disprove it!"
And in fact, if anyone is sufficiently determined, they can come up with a possible argument against any evidence.
Take the Turin Shroud. It was carbon dated, and found to have a date entirely consistent with its first appearance in the historical record in late medieval times.
But the desire to believe was stronger than that, and someone came up with an argument that the fabric of the shroud was contaminated, and this had caused the carbon dating to be out by a factor of 3. This theory formed the basis of a best-selling book.
Equally, I'm sure that if scientific tests came out with clear-cut evidence that the diary was a modern fake, someone would manage to come out with a possibility consistent with its authenticity. They would argue that the methodology was flawed, or the equipment was dirty, or the diary was only a transcript of the genuine article, or the researchers had been bribed to lie about their results, or something.
That's why we have to talk about probabilities as well as possibilities in order to reach any sensible conclusion. After all, "All things are possible ..."
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Chris,
Don't worry I was joking
Personally I agree with you. some things are wildly improbable thats life!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 50
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
John in relation to your post above, my answer is
The diary is a FAKE. Yes I might have too eat my words (but I very much doubt it)as long as they are covered in chocolate!!!
Busy Beaver  |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Thanks, BB,
We'll see if this new attempt to ask Caroline has finally made the question clear enough for her to answer.
Love the animation,
--John 
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 5:09 am: | |
Caz,
Of course it was I who used the words,'Unshakeable belief',and I do not in the least mind you refering to that fact.I have not,on the other hand,stated I would reject any other results from whatever testing that might be carried out at some future date.Be quick though,I am only a few months short of my 77th birthday anniversary.
Now what is my unshakeable belief.It is that no one ever claimed to have seen scratches in the form of letters,on the inside back of the watch in question,at any time before the watch came into the possession of Albert Johnson.
Can you refute that claim.If so be clear and precise in your answer. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Harry,
I'll be praying for you, but even if you're in the very best of health, I'm afraid I don't like your chances.
Or mine.
Sorry,
--John  |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 2:26 am: | |
John wrote:
Caroline,
The diary was:
_____ written by the real James Maybrick
_____ not written by the real James Maybrick
I believe Caroline has answered this same question put to her by Peter Birchwood a couple of years ago on these boards. Her reply, in her opinion, was that it was a forgery.
Sorry to put words in your mouth Caroline. I really can't stand to see you attacked in the way you have, when you're just asking questions about possible scenarios you can't be sure of. But others have resolutely affirmed their interpretations of their own scenarios as fact. I guess the truth will come some day (maybe from Surry, hint, hint, hint, Walter Dew's descendents?)
So anyway hang in there,...your book was a great read by the way. Pity I couldn't get an autographed copy
(Message edited by Snelson on July 12, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 7:36 am: | |
Hi Scott,
Interesting. Thanks for the reminder. I hope that when Caroline reappears she confirms that this is her position.
All the best,
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 665
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 8:02 am: | |
Hang on. First, although I am all for a bit of sport aimed in certain directions--indeed I do believe I started it back in the day when John and said sport were still bosomy buds, hanging cheek to cheek-- that in itself ought to be a reminder that people do get to change their minds and opinions without it being held against them.
If Caroline has changed her mind on whether it was a forgery or not, then that is her right and can't be held against her. Although I too would like to see her just once answer a direct question directly, without all the eyelash flutter and evasion. The problem is that John does not know how to word a question to avoid eyelash flutter. I mean really, how is Caroline supposed to know whether he wrote it or not and she could quite rightly, if irritatingly, claim that. The question should read:
Caroline, in your opinion, the diary was
______ written by James Maybrick
______ not written by James Maybrick.
(Message edited by ally on July 12, 2004)
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 3:05 am: | |
Hi Scotty,
Great to see you here! 
Just to remind Chris (and anyone else to whom it may apply), I wrote:
'If you are so sure of your position that nothing would force you to reconsider, that's fine, but then what are you actually debating here?'
I think we should make allowances for Chris, but John O must know the rules of debate inside out and backwards. We know this because he applies them inside out and backwards – or invents new ones, and demands that I recognise them and obey.
Apparently, I am not allowed to ask questions or challenge arguments unless I offer this forum my own fully-fledged ‘position’, ‘hypothesis’, ‘theory’, ‘explanation’, ‘scenario’, ‘claim’, ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’, call it what they will, concerning the origins of the diary or watch.
The new rule of debate seems to be: Thou shalt not question or challenge any of the arguments presented for a certain view (in this case, that the diary could not have existed before 1987, nor the watch scratches before 1993), unless you have a fixed view of your own, which you must express and then support, complete with verifiable evidence and counter-arguments.
‘You can just copy the bit above and paste it into a message, typing an X next to one of those two lines.’
And John can go and – er, just think again before he imposes more new rules that won’t turn a single ‘implausible’, or even a whole bunch of ‘em, into an ‘impossible’. Perhaps he should ask the people of Liverpool in the very best position to know, what they think is more ‘implausible’ – Albert Johnson and his watch being involved in a modern hoax conspiracy, Mike Barrett helping to create the diary, or James Maybrick having lived a secret double life before dying in notorious and arguably mysterious circumstances. Let’s face it, it could hardly be less productive than staying here, trying to manipulate Caz’s thinking and writing.
Hi Chris,
‘If you have no explanation to offer, fine, but please don't put forward half an explanation, and confuse the issue by insisting it is possible, even though you yourself won't go so far as to say it's plausible.’
I’m sorry this is all so confusing for you. But you insist on using the word ‘explanation’, when I never claimed to be offering one, or even half of one. Either you think something’s possible or you don’t. If you want to claim it’s impossible that the killer knew about the matchbox, that’s fine. Go ahead. Alternatively, if you’d rather claim it’s impossible for a 63-page confessional document to contain one four-word sequence that also appears somewhere in the case records, unless its author found the item listed there and (some would say implausibly) decided to copy it straight into a list of the killers’ thoughts – that’s fine too. But you only need to find one genuine impossible in your box of tricks to send me and all those unhelpful implausibles packing.
Good luck.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 3:27 am: | |
Caz wrote:
Either you think something’s possible or you don’t.
If you really can't appreciate the difference between possibility and probability, I'll give up for now.
As always, I don't believe you're as obtuse as you're making out. I'll take the stubbornness with which you cling to the mantra It's possible! It's possible! as an implicit acknowledgment of how unlikely you know your suggestion to be!
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 7:42 am: | |
So, still no answer.
Let's try one more time, perhaps this will be easier.
Caroline, I'm going to write a sentence below, in bold print. Now, all you have to do is send a one letter response.
Just type either the letter T if you think the sentence is True or F if you think it is False and then hit "send."
You don't have to do anything else. I'm not asking for theories or explanations or a defense of your position or anything like that.
Just push a single key on your keyboard, OK?
Here we go:
The diary was written by the real James Maybrick.
One letter will do just fine.
With hope,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
John,
actually if Caroline did that she would not be able to send a message because it has to be at least two words which are more than two letters long or some such thing!
ps 14 coming what's happening!?
Chris and Caroline,
I think I agree with Chris on this one but I'm getting a bit lost so please forgive me! Caroline - either I think something is possible or I don't. Whilst I agree with this statement I still find it problematic because of the nature of certainty. Here's what I mean, I think it is possible James Maybrick was JTR, possible but not the most likely explanation. I think it is possible Jack The Ripper wrote a confession, possible because not knowing who JTR was (and therefore if he/she could write) pen and paper and the means to communicate existed therefore it is possible. However, it could be equally said that it is possible the diary of JTR is a forgery and that it is possible that JTR was a woman.
Don't take this the wrong way I am struggling for examples! It is not possible pigs can fly because this is biologically unsound there is evidence that contradicts this and proves the statement 'pigs can fly'false, for example pigs do not have wings and no pig has ever been seen to fly or attempt to fly, hence the joke.
Is it possible that the killer knew about the matchbox? Answer - yes it is possible because the matchbox existed and so did the killer. They were both in the same place at the same time. Is it possible that the diary could contain the exact same four word quote that appears in the official documents without the two ever having met up (ie the killer and document) now this is where all i have written above becomes defunct. This is because I would argue that it is possible - it's possible because words exist and that is not an unlikely combination of words and the combination of words tells a story that the tin match box was empty. Assuming JTR (or whoever wrote the diary) knew this fact about the tin match box it is possible. But it is the assumption itself which leads to the problem of implausibility. Further more I would like to add to the hat the question of probability. I would love to know what the probabilty of the two documents having the exact same four letter words in the exact same order was (assuming they had never met). Maths anyone?
Therefore to sum up my point it is this -
lots of things are possible but that does not make them likely. It is possible a tiny tiny dog lives secretly in my house - but I think you would all agree that its unlikely!
Happy diary world is still ticking over!
Cheers
Jennifer
ps did that make sense?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Jennifer,
Fair enough.
After typing just the single letter (and I suspect there might be a temptation to type two), Caroline can space down a bit and type her name or my name or any other word she wants 24 times.
It'll just be the one letter that will be the content of her post. That's all I'm asking for.
Just a T or an F.
TTFN,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
John,
that was quick!
Fair enough! (ttfn - what's that mean?)
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Jennifer
Thanks for injecting a note of common sense.
Here's another analogy that occurred to me.
Suppose the diary contained these words:
"Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away. Now it looks as though they're here to stay."
It's possible that a Victorian businessman could have written these words in his diary. But most people would have no trouble deciding that a claimed Victorian document containing these words was extremely improbable to be the genuine article.
And what if they were immediately followed by Oh, I believe in yesterday? But this would be no less possible, viewed as a coincidence.
I'm sorry to labour the point. It's such an obvious one that I can't imagine why any fair-minded person would disagree.
Chris Phillips
P.S. I wouldn't be too sure about the absolute impossibility of pigs flying. Not on this board, at least!. What if they were given a lift in Concorde? What if they were launched from a big enough catapult? And can you absolutely exclude the possibility of a psychic pig, levitating itself by telekinesis?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 504
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 11:11 am: | |
Chris,
Thanks.
I once read a very interesting book about coincidence (I've mentioned this before but I thought it was a good book!). It was called 'Beyond Coincidence' by King/Plimmer (I think) and in it they recount several coincidences.
On the point you make about the song 'Yesterday' I would assume the more words the same that there are the more improbable it becomes that the words could occur independently. I feel the need for a test of some sort!
Saying the diary contained these words 'rats live in the sewer and they are vermin'-... I don't know where this is leading!
re your ps - whilst what you say here is all possible I would have to disagree that in any of these cases they would actually be flying. They would be flying in the sense that they were on a plane but not in the literal sense in relation to your first suggestion. Being launched from a catapult does not constitute flying it constitutes falling from a long way over a large distance! The psychic pig as you rightly state would be levitating and NOT flying!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 67
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
Hi John H
Sorry to take a while. The real world has been very busy of late.
Well it seems to me that the wishful thinking going on here certainly isn’t on my part if you think your last post is going to convince anyone but yourself and a few others who don’t need convincing anyway.
I‘ll echo your point about hopes of the reports becoming available soon, but that’s about as far as I’m prepared to go. I really think you need to re read the reports and your own posts rather better before going any further.
There is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the order of the intentional scratches made within the watch. Your response to me makes it quite clear that you can’t find any either. Bringing in possible surface marks that have about as much do with the case as the flowers that bloom in the spring fails to impress totally.
Now to quote your post in response to my question……
Paul….“Perhaps then we shall get an explanation of how atmospheric pollution, in the form of carbon, found its way into the surface of the metal within the scratches. Something an expert in corrosion says requires a prolonged exposure to the environment."
John….”Not carbon Paul. Hydrocarbons. (Big difference there...)……………… As a result the initial spectra only identified CARBON and oxygen………………”
Precisely. The initial spectra detected CARBON. No further comment needed from me.
(BTW. I do know what hydrocarbons are.)
John….“Nowhere in Wild's report does it say that carbon found its way into the surface of the metal.”
Try looking at the spectrographs John, if you have them. But then you must have, you quoted them above.
John….”P.S. Turgoose was the corrosion expert, not Wild. Wild worked for the Interface Analysis Centre at Bristol.”
Are you seriously arguing that Dr Wild hasn’t any expertise in corrosion in metals?……….. Please! That’s splitting just one hair too many.
John…”I think that once the reports become public, the characteristics of the scratches will be found to be more significant than their order.”
I couldn’t disagree more John. The order of the scratches are highly significant unless you are into conspiracy theories between the likes of the Murphys, Dundas and Albert. I just don’t want to go there. Plenty gets made about other posters discussing possibilities and probabilities and plausibility elsewhere on the boards. The suggestion that all or some of these people were lying or made up stories is just down right silly.
Just for the record,(in case there is another living person who is remotely bothered about the Maybrick watch out there except us few), perhaps it may be useful to recap a few points here, where they can’t be interrupted with the inevitable smokescreen of meaningless words which seem to appear 10 minutes after every post that isn’t on the side of the modern hoax conspiracy plot.
There are three watch reports by two separate and quite independent scientists. They are not in any way conclusive, but all three support the view that the scratches within the watch are more than a few decades old. The facts that these reports concur as they do, is in itself inevitably of some consequence. How much is up to the individual to decide.
A very big deal is made of the standard scientist's “Get out clause” referring to comments like “….from the limited access to the watch…” and whatever. This is common practice to avoid possible litigation or unpleasantness at a later date. I think far too much is made of this.
The bulk of the data contained within the reports has NEVER been in the public domain, despite some rather lame attempts here to try and make it seem as if it has, and cannot be fully discussed until it is. This data can then be examined by anyone who can still be bothered, no matter what their persuasion or bias is, either for or against the diary.
We will get the answers John. At least we will if some ground can be found whereby some sort of cooperation can take place. There aren’t really enough interested parties who haven’t been bored to death left to have a pointless fight. It doesn’t seem too hopeful at present having just bored myself silly reading acres of posts that have more to do with ego than JTR, but you never know do you?
All the best, and as ever optimistic,
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Paul writes:
A very big deal is made of the standard scientist's “Get out clause” referring to comments like “….from the limited access to the watch…” and whatever. This is common practice to avoid possible litigation or unpleasantness at a later date. I think far too much is made of this.
Well, that's not a surprise. Sometimes you just gotta' love the way our brethren choose to read.
Yes, clearly we should not pay "too much" attention to the words the scientists actually wrote.
As for the rest of the post above, it finally becomes just one in a series of "maybe somedays"
But today that's OK, because today I love Paul, who is doing his best to keep our Diary World spinning.
--John (Celebrating in the spirit of this special day) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
I particularly liked this bit:
The order of the scratches are highly significant unless you are into conspiracy theories between the likes of the Murphys, Dundas and Albert. ... The suggestion that all or some of these people were lying or made up stories is just down right silly.
This is, of course, the same Dundas who swore an affidavit that the Maybrick scratches were not on the watch when he examined it before its sale to Albert Johnson. ...
Whoops!
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
Well whadda ya know! I check the board for the first time in a week and there a fresh post waiting for me.
"John….”Not carbon Paul. Hydrocarbons.} (Big difference there...)……………… As a result the initial spectra only identified CARBON and oxygen………………”
Precisely. The initial spectra detected CARBON. No further comment needed from me."
Not free carbon Paul. There's a big difference between free carbon, and carbon bound to oxygen and hydrogen in the form of hydrocarbons. You could make the same argument if skin cells were found on the surface. "There's carbon in those cells!" Which is of course true, but it's not an accurate or informative representation of the data.
"John….“Nowhere in Wild's report does it say that carbon found its way into the surface of the metal.”
Try looking at the spectrographs John, if you have them. But then you must have, you quoted them above."
Yes, I've seen them. They don't show carbon in the surface of the metal. Auger spectroscopy has a very fine depth resolution, but it's not precise to the molecule. It measures the material within a depth of 20 angstroms from the surface. (Approximately 200 nanometers) So while it's retrieving material from the immediate surface, it's also retrieving material from below it. Hence the surface contaminants and gold and silver all showing in the same relative region of the micrograph. And as the polishing by Murphy would have removed the top most layers of the surface we can rule out any kind of long term process that would have the carbon binding any of the watch metals.
"I couldn’t disagree more John. The order of the scratches are highly significant unless you are into conspiracy theories between the likes of the Murphys, Dundas and Albert. I just don’t want to go there. Plenty gets made about other posters discussing possibilities and probabilities and plausibility elsewhere on the boards. The suggestion that all or some of these people were lying or made up stories is just down right silly."
No conspiracy is required for it to be a modern hoax Paul. I don't expect you to be convinced as you have clearly made up your mind regarding what the tests mean even though you apparently haven't investigated the science involved or the basics of the methods used.
That's Ok. I'm not here to convince anyone, I'm just here to learn, and to provide an alternate perspective to the one sided information people have been getting on the reports. Indeed, I've learned quite a bit of late. Of course I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to accept my interpretation of the possibilities on faith. Once the reports come out, we can revisit this topic in detail.
"We will get the answers John. At least we will if some ground can be found whereby some sort of cooperation can take place. There aren’t really enough interested parties who haven’t been bored to death left to have a pointless fight. It doesn’t seem too hopeful at present having just bored myself silly reading acres of posts that have more to do with ego than JTR, but you never know do you?"
I certainly agree that the discussion has become very dull and circular. Frankly, my interest in the diary discussion is fading every time around the wheel. There has been no significant advances made in either the pro or con case in quite some time. But in the spirit of DiTA day, I'll keep my hopes up and raise a glass to the spirit of hope. (But not Guiness though. I just can't drink that stuff.)
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer,
I’m happy to leave you and Chris to air your thoughts on probability. I have my own thoughts, for example, on the probability of Albert being involved in a 1993 hoax conspiracy (yes, John H, a conspiracy, unless you can explain how just one person could have planned and executed it, then manipulated the 'discovery' without anyone else knowing about it and telling porkies ever since) but don’t worry, I won’t be inflicting them on anyone here.
At least I’ve made my point about the crucial difference between what’s truly ‘impossible’ and what’s not. If ‘extremely unlikely’ had been enough to cut it, no one would need to be here, right now, still defending not one, but two unproven modern hoax conspiracy theories (assuming Mike Barrett didn't create the diary by himself, and without anyone else's knowledge).
And I doubt anyone would be remotely interested in any opinions I may or may not have held at any time over the last five years. I must say I’m mildly amused to see the interest in my current opinion reaching desperation point, particularly when the desperate one has made his case, of which he’s certain (anyone hear Frank Sinatra singing yet?), and surely needs no insight into my way.
Tonight, I will be seeing to my own needs for a change. I had over 100 needy people on the dog and bone this morning, making me answer true or false to whether their solicitor would call them straight back, so I’m fresh out of T’s and F’s.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Hiya Caz,
"yes, John H, a conspiracy, unless you can explain how just one person could have planned and executed it, then manipulated the 'discovery' without anyone else knowing about it and telling porkies ever since"
Sure. I can do that. But I won't. Not everyone has access to the same information at this point, and while I can explain with confidence how the physical aspect could have been handled, there is more than one cantidate for the "porkie" teller.
I know I still owe you some email replies. (I had some thoughts on some of the points raised in that email you forwarded to me.) I'm sorry about the lateness. I screwed up my wrists from too much typing when pulling overtime the past couple of weeks.
Now that I'm starting to be able to use my hands without pain I promise myself everyday that I'll get caught up on my email... and then I play with my new kitten (Shadow!) instead. It's hard to sit at the computer while there's a tiny ball of fur bouncing around your feet. I'll get caught up soon, promise.
I hope you enjoy your evening off. :-)
John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Caroline,
You've lost me now (re Albert)! But I'm glad we all agree on what the difference between something being extremely unlikely and impossible is
You know - I can't make this sound nice - it's intended too - so let me say this i don't really see how it is relevant either. Now what i've written doesn't make sense but i hope you get my drift?
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 429
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
And still no answer.
Of course.
Let's try something in the spirit of the magical day.
Caroline (if you are still here):
I'll bet you $100 US Dollars that the real James Maybrick did not write the diary.
Would you be willing to take that bet?
Or don't you think he wrote it either?
This is a serious offer.
I know you don't want to admit to us what you think, but surely you'll be interested in a chance at a little cash if you are of the opinion that authenticity is likely.
With hope that, in the new spirit of the future and all the joyous, drunken meanderings of our first DiTA day, you'll finally see fit to admit one way or another whether you think the real James wrote this book, I remain your brother in Diary World arms,
--John 
|
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 8:21 am: | |
John
For the sake of Caz's sanity I will try to explain, as the concept of questions not always being answered yes or no seems to be beyond you.
She is undecided and doesnt mind saying so. For her and many others the evidence one way or the other is inconclusive. This does not make her thoughts on the matter irrelevant. In fact her impartiality and objectiveness, make her views, in my opinion more worthwhile than self centered, pompous individuals who think that they are cleverer than anyone else and try to talk down to others.
I know its awful that not everyone takes your OPINIONS as written in stone facts, but some people are just totally unreasonable.
Alan
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 433
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:22 am: | |
Alan,
Nice try, but so far Caz has not and will not say even simply that she is "undecided" as to whether the real James wrote the diary.
Still, I don't want to be unfair, especially not at the beginning of a brand new DiTA year, so I'll ask her politely.
Caz, are you actually "undecided" about whether the real James Maybrick wrote this diary?
A simple yes or no will be just fine, you don't even have to explain why.
Easily satisfied,
--John
PS: Alan, I'm not sure your tone was quite appropriate for the joyous spirit of the new year, but you're a guest here, so I guess I'll let it pass. Try and remember, though, that since yesterday, we all do really love each other and are simply looking ahead to brighter days and the fulfillment of the future's many promises.
PPS: You know the book's a fake, right? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi John H,
Look after those sore wrists! And give Shadow a big cuddle for me. No rush at all for any email replies. I haven't had time to fart this week!  All the wind is coming from another direction.
I don't quite understand how one Johnson brother could have faked the watch without the other knowing something was wrong, or how Albert could have done it all on his own, within the space of a month, then fooled the rest of his family, friends and workmates. But I can be very patient, and wait until you or someone else can explain the logistics of it, in terms of only one lying faker and everyone else being totally fooled by him - whoever he is supposed to be.
Hi Jenn,
The relevance is that the truly 'impossible' would require no one to still be here defending it as impossible, whereas the 'extremely unlikely' is apparently enough to keep one or two posters very vigilant and busy bees indeed.
I continue to believe that the theory that Mike Barrett had anything to do with the diary's creation, or that Albert Johnson would have been involved with putting the scratches in the watch, is considered laughable by anyone who actually knows the two men, and for very different reasons. But that is simply my opinion and no one need give it any weight if they don't want to.
Hi Alan,
Please don't worry about my sanity. 
You might find my thoughts relevant, but what possible relevance could they have (whatever they might be) for someone who, er, professes to know all the answers already?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
And still no answer.
Not even willing to take a bet.
Not even willing to admit here to being simply "undecided."
I wonder why. (No, not really.)
In any case, Caroline does write:
"...the 'extremely unlikely' is apparently enough to keep one or two posters very vigilant and busy bees indeed."
Yes.
Indeed.
And I know the initials of at least one of those bees.
But I'm not gonna' say. It would be too Anti-DiTA.
Hoping at least some readers notice what's happening (and what's not),
--John
PS: Here are some fun numbers -- 1141, 445, 374. You can all go now and play the lottery.
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 6:05 am: | |
To those who cling to the idea that this or that person,could not or would not, be part of a singular or conspirital attempt to defraud,mislead,or indulge in forgery,are in my opinion out of touch with known human behaviour.
I served for many years as a customs officer,which duties also involved processing for immigration purposes,so I believe I talk from experience.My opinion is that no one,from any class of society,can presumed to be innocent of any type of deceit,no matter how or why it is presented.
The watch and diary are examples of well contrived hoaxes,nothing more.There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Should they be exported as the genuine belongings of James Maybrick,alias Jack the Ripper,there is no doubt in my mind,that both items would be subject to seizure by customs,as fraudulent.
There is no way that is going to happen,at least not by the present owners.That is why talk of the watch being sold to American interests,was just that,talk.It could not happen. |
A.SMITH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
$100 WOW JOHN I DIDNT REALISE YOU WERE SUCH A HIGH ROLLER, GOD THATS ALMOST £60. DO YOU REALISE HOW MANY M & MS THAT COULD BUY?
JUST ONE THING. WHO WOULD DECIDE ON THE OFFICIAL RESULT OF THE WAGER? I GUESS MAYBE WE WOULD JUST TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT AFTER ALL THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR ANYONE.
INCIDENTALLY YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING THIS SUBJECT FOR SOMEONE SO SURE OF ITS LACK OF AUTHENTICIY.
AS SHYLOCK HOLMES SAID TO PORTION IN THE MERCHANT OF VIENNA BY CHARLES DICKENS "I FEAR THE LAD DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH"
ALAN |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Alan,
do I detect a note of sarcasm?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 463
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
The "Caps Lock" button is the large one halfway down on the farthest left side of your keyboard. You need to hit it again to get it to turn off.
Just trying to be helpful,
--John
PS: Still no answer, of course. As always, anyone interested in discussing the reason why can feel free to write me private email if they are curious.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Watch, the watch isn't that interesting!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
No, but I wonder what happened to those reports that were about to be published?
Just another broken or indefinitely deferred DiTA promise, perhaps.
Business as usual here in Diary World, where as we all know by now, there is...
nothing new and nothing real.
Ever.
--John |
Stef Kukla
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
I really do wish certain individuals would stop stating "FORGERY" as if it were a given fact. The notion of the diary &/or watch being forged is as much of a theory as the notion that it's genuine.
The truth is, it is much simpler to prove a fake than to prove the genuine article.
As for the following quote from Chris Phillips' July 6th post:
"Most people agree that there is overwhelming evidence against the genuineness of the diary. (To take one example, I believe Paul Begg, who has recently been quoted here, is not in any doubt that the diary is a fake.)"
Hmmmm...yes. I've just finished reading Mr Begg's "Definitive History" and in it he clearly implies that the chief reason for his opinion is that the handwriting bears no resemblance to Maybrick's or Ripper-letters.
I find this a strange attitude to take in light of his suggestion that the Parnell forger could have written the "Dear Boss" letter and might even have been the killer himself. Having seen facsimiles of the Parnell forgeries, I can state quite confidently that the handwriting styles of Piggott and 'Jack the Ripper/Saucy Jacky' are so DISsimilar that it's a wonder Mr Begg even bothered to address the issue.
And how does such a judgement call reflect on his views of the diary handwriting? CONSIDERABLY. Did he take into account the effects of paranoid schizophrenia on handwriting? Or the slow, deliberate, artificial construction of "Dear Boss"?
I'm about to commence reading "Ripper Diary: The Inside Story". Perhaps it may answer some of my questions.
Perhaps not.
Who knows... |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 14
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
The Watch is given a full page in today's Daily Mail (page 13). However there is one important mistake made. The newspaper says that there are only 5 initials when obviously there are 7 engraved inside the watch.
Also is one of the "pro-Diary" books getting a re-release? It cant be Shirley Harrison's book as that had a new edition quite recently, is it Paul Feldman's? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
OK I am prepared to suspend my disbelief. I darent usually mention the legendary watch reports. where then are they (I mean it must be true because i read it in the Daily Mail!) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
