|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 815
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:22 am: | 
|
Caz,
I saw nothing in your book that points to actual profits Albert might have gained from the watch. The only thing there is Albert's claims to have lost money on the watch and absolutely no indication of how much he has gained.
Now since you yourself were interested in what he has received for the watch, the naivety that the information "might have been of interest to some of the readers of our book", when it is very clear exactly why this information is relevant, is just a little disingenuine. You once again shaded it away from a forgery in your very "neutral" book by providing no evidence to the contrary of Albert's claims. You state "But with the best will in the world, had we included absolutely every scrap of info, financial or otherwise, verified or not, we would still be working on the first half of the first chapter". This is your claim every time you leave out information that shows the possibility of a forgery. How's this for fitting in: In actuality, Albert, has to this date spent 1,400 pounds and has been paid over 2,000 pounds for the diary, so his claims that he has spent more than he has made don't quite add up.
A nice short sentence that could have fit nicely.
Albert's actions at the time are perfectly acceptable for a hoax. If Albert worked at a technical college, and done his homework, he could have been well aware that dating scratches in metal was difficult and could have known that a brief examination was unlikely to turn up anything except inconclusive reports but nothing to categorically state it was not old scratches.
So, no, his actions at the time do not necessary mean he was innocent, any more than they mean he was guilty.
And in case you missed my previous post, I pointed out that even in the midst of your former so-called apology, you flatly blamed me and John for your mistake. I take it you have nothing essential to say on the matter?
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hi John,
I've tried to work out what you mean by your PS:
'I suspect Albert does not believe quite everything Mr. Murphy was "able to report about the history of his watch."'
Can you give me a clue? I'm totally baffled.
Hi Ally,
In actuality, Albert, has to this date spent 1,400 pounds and has been paid over 2,000 pounds for the diary, so his claims that he has spent more than he has made don't quite add up.
Don't call a publisher, they'll call you. 
I'm not sure how this piece of unverified speculation - had we included it in the book - would have shown 'the possibility of a forgery'.
Albert has also claimed that he has incurred various expenses over the years attending functions with his watch - not all of which have been reimbursed.
Without documented evidence either way, it would have been quite wrong of us to imply that £1,400 was the total amount Albert had spent up to the time of writing, or that he had spent more than that. Any attempt by us to add up figures we had no access to, and no way of verifying or disproving, in order to suggest innocence or guilt, could have been seen by either 'side' as misleading and biased.
I think the onus here is on you to show that Albert did know that 'a brief examination [or, to be more accurate, three examinations by two specialists] was unlikely to turn up anything except inconclusive reports'.
And of course, had Drs. Wild or Turgoose not been able to conclude anything at all from their examinations, they could simply have said so in their reports.
I admitted I made the mistake of offering the address when I had no right to actually give it. For Gawd's sake, the essential thing is that no one has died or been hurt or offended in the process, and Albert should be receiving his little billet-doux from John any day now.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Caroline,
Never mind, it wasn't that important. Although, to quote (perhaps) our friend Albert, "maybe it will come to you."
And I thought Ally had offered documentary evidence concerning Albert's being paid and that this was not just "unverified speculation."
Am I wrong?
--John
PS: As for your "mistake," you still haven't explained that "making me say yes three separate times, repeating it in a private e-mail" game you played with me, by the way. Would you be willing to tell us what that was about? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
John,
can you not give it a rest?
anyway, i don't think it makes a bit of difference how much money Albert has spent/recieved. it only matters how much he thought he could make,ASSUMING he forged it, which we all were in this hypothesis.
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Jenni,
As others have pointed out, making money is not the only reason people pull stunts like this.
But it does make a bit of difference how much money he got if someone is going to argue that his spending money on the watch and reports is evidence of his innocence.
As for your first question -- Hey, I asked politely.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
John,
exactly true.
but, lets be honest. i am arguing his spending money on the wathc is not proof of his innocence. if he's innocent fine, that doesnt prove it!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Fair enough.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Hi John,
Well, I'm not sure Ally clarified for the board exactly where she found her documentary evidence concerning Albert's total financial gains. But without a total figure being obtainable for what he has paid out over the years, we are still in the land of "unverified speculation" regarding whether he could boast a net gain or claim a net loss.
The bottom line is that Albert had the opportunity to make a huge profit along the way and didn't take it, for whatever reason.
I am not arguing that the available financial evidence suggests his innocence; I am saying that the available financial evidence does not support the modern hoax claim made on these boards. And you seem to appreciate this fact, since you wrote that 'making money is not the only reason people pull stunts like this'.
Love,
Caz
X
PS I originally suggested you email me about sending a letter to Albert, to show you were sincere about all the posts you had been writing that only he was in a position to address. For some reason you didn't want to do this, and instead posted an invitation to me to email you. As Stephen Ryder wrote to me at one point, it would have been better if the whole 'letter' discussion had been confined to emails from the outset, and we could have made the simple arrangements for getting the letter to Albert accordingly.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 822
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 7:37 am: |
|
Well, I'm not sure Ally clarified for the board exactly where she found her documentary evidence concerning Albert's total financial gains.
I am sorry Caz, but as you were the one who asked for the information, not the boards, I didn't feel I needed to elaborate further since the information is presented in your book (with some carefully left out details-like the amount Albert received). You do mention the agreement between Albert's attorney and the publishers of the diary to use Albert's story but leave out that the agreement was for money even though three sentences before you write how he turned down an offer for Robert Smith to pay for the tests (and take part ownership of the watch) and heroically paid for the tests himself. The little contract between them is mentioned in parentheses, a little side note as it were, and no mention that money changed hands in that agreement. Once again, I do find the editing to be a bit suspect. But as the contract was mentioned in your book, I would think that no further clarification for you would have been necessary.
But without a total figure being obtainable for what he has paid out over the years, we are still in the land of "unverified speculation" regarding whether he could boast a net gain or claim a net loss.
This is where better investigation on the part of, oh say, anyone writing a book about the subject would have come in handy. Too bad no one has ever written a book trying to get all the inside facts.
The bottom line is that Albert had the opportunity to make a huge profit along the way and didn't take it, for whatever reason.
And the watch, to date, remains thoroughly untestable (look ma, I made a word).
I am not arguing that the available financial evidence suggests his innocence; I am saying that the available financial evidence does not support the modern hoax claim made on these boards.
While you may not be using this info to claim his innocence, it does rather put paid to your argument that if he had forged the watch he would hardly have been likely to incur out of pocket expense. Which is what you were arguing before it became clear that Albert has received money for his watch story.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1742
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
The bottom line is that Albert had the opportunity to make a huge profit along the way and didn't take it, for whatever reason.
i'm not sure i understand when this opportunity arouse
cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1743
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
I am saying that the available financial evidence does not support the modern hoax claim made on these boards.
again you've lost me.
Let me explain.
firstly he doesn't need to have made money only have thought he could. secondly some people do these things for other reasons fame power etc. not necessarily financial gain.
again i must stress this does not mean albert johnson did it it simply does not rule out that possibility
Thanks
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Ally and Jenni have responded perfectly to Caroline's post to me here, I think.
As for her PS: It makes no sense, since I wrote here twice, clearly and specifically, YES, please send me the address and even included my email. How writing the same thing a third time would somehow "demonstrate my sincerity" is a complete mystery. (Does writing the words here rather than there somehow indicate a lack of sincerity?)
And it she who initiated talk of writing Albert and she did so right here on the boards and urged me to ask for the address in posts she put up right here on the boards, so her saying now that it should not have been on the boards doesn't explain her making me ask three times.
Unfortunately, I suspect this is the best "explanation" we are ever going to get for that perverse little power game of "look what I can make you do for no reason at all."
Thankfully, the posts are still there and the lighthouse is still shining to warn the weary and lost travelers what awaits them in these waters.
From Diary World, a unique place indeed,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on February 04, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1746
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
excuse me, can i just say/ask:-
#1 there are several tens of years when this watch could have been marked. There is no actual solid factual evidence at present to help us with a date. The Wild report does seem to indicate that the watch was older than 1973, which is fine, but again we must stress the prelimenary nature of the reports and the mention that this is only the case if no interefence took place (we could wonder what exactly that means).
#2 given all this we are left again with three distinct possibilities, posibility number one (being the most unlikely possibility in my opinion) is that the watch is old and was scratched by James Maybrick (with further possbilities depending on whether he was Jack the Ripper!) This is the view of Paul Feldman in his book JTR the Final Chapter. The second possibility is that the diary is an 'old' forgery. Now I put 'old' in inverted comas only to indicate that that covers several tens of years probably the years 1888-1988 or there abouts in the terms we are talking, even as late as 1990 we might say old fake for the watch, which is ten years ago, but isntr really that old. This is the view of several people (i could add more but will leave it at that!) Quite fair to think so as solid evidence (Wild, Turgoose) seems to exist to indicate this as the possible right answer (yes you heard right, no, i wasn't being sarcastic). Finally the possibility that we are talking about here, that the watch is a 'modern' fake. Modern meaning 1990 or later. here again are several possibilities. They are that a) the watch was faked after the diary became public knowledge (thereby indicating Albert Johnson knows who faked it unless someone did it behind his back). b) they were faked together (which is less likely considering the Manchester victims absence from the watch, but nonetheless possible ). c) that they were faked seperately but around the same time.
#3 If the watch is fake that doesn't mean the diary is fake. If the diary is fake that doesn't mean the watch is. If the watch is an old forgery that doesnt make the diary an old forgery, that doesn't mean that the diary is not a modern fake (which we can argue about on diary threads!).
#4 circumstancial evidence is not enough. That's right i repeat my point that my feeling that the watch is a modern fake is based on nothing but a gut feeling. Where is my evidence? I don't have any, I don't even have enough to convince myself. Do you?
#5 making money is not the only reason people pull stunts like this. And once again I repeat just because mega bucks havent been made does not mean it wasnt the intention (however old it is)
#6 now can someone answer me this question, who owned the bloody watch before Albert Johnson, and before that? anyone know?
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
ps John sorry our posts overlapped!
diary world is a unique place. i love it here
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
"of course, the cynics criticised Albert for not granting R.K. Wild unlimited access to the watch. They ignore the cost of such an excerise.
I could not believe that the scratchings could be anything other than old, in which case the 'modern forgery theory could be dismissed."
and so ends discussion on the Wild report on pp 244 of the 2002 Virgin edition of Feldman.
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
"Dismissed."
That's a good word for Paul.
--John
(Beavis: heh heh...heh heh... she said "virgin.") |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Interesting isn't it?
Jenni
ps tut tut. virgin trains, now Freud would love that!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1768
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Now we turn to the Blake edition (1998) of Shirley Harrison's book for some interesting comments.
"the report [Turgoose] had cost Albert Johnson several hundred pounds of his own money, which was proof enough to me that there was no skulduggery afoot. had Albert forged the scrathes himself, or was collaborating with someone who had, he could not have dared to throw himself on the mercy of an independent scientist such as Dr Turgoose"
pp 246
and
"In January 1994, Albert agreed to submit the watch - at my expense this time - to a second test."
also pp 246
and
"Meanwhile Albert - who was living on a very modest income - turned down an offer from America of $40,000 for the watch. he was not interested in money"
pp 247
and interestingly
"It was Richard Nicholas who suggested that the brothers should take the watch to be forensically tested in the hope that they could prove the age of the scratches"
pp 244/5
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 80
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
Hi Again Sir R.
I meant it. You don’t have to be entirely sane to make sane comments do you? At least I hope not! Glad to see a different face, and one who actually wants to discuss rather than shove the same old empty sarcasms at us day and night anyway.
Harry.
Thanks for your reply to my post. I only intended to point out that your comments concerning the physical properties of the watch were incorrct. I did not intend to imply any more than that. Did you think Chris Phillips adequately answered it? I thought he missed the point completely.
When I started posting here there were plenty of people still prepared to believe the watch was a ladies watch! Presumably as this suited their case. Just keeping the record straight anyway.
An English factory manufactured fusee gold watch of the 19th century would require a skilled goldsmith to dismantle it as the hinges are integral parts of the case. Always. No exceptions. Make of that what you will, but its as easily verifiable as the sex of a pocket watch is to those who care to look.!
Any extremes of temperature or atmospheric conditions that the watch may have been subjected to over the years would tell on the delicate parts of the movement long before affecting any part of the gold case or dial. The hairspring being usually the first to go.
Watches rescued from ship wrecks prove this beyond any doubt. Perfect empty cases, most of ‘em.
The Maybrick watch needed a light clean and a mainspring, I believe, when Tim Dundas serviced it. Very good evidence that it had been looked after and kept in “normal” conditions for most of its life if not all of it.
John O
Paul “Here's a question. How would Maybrick have made these marks? What is a believable scenario for the real James Maybrick making these tiny scratches? Exactly what would he have done, process-wise?”
How on earth should I know? Have I ever claimed Maybrick made these marks? No I thought not. My point is, and always will be, unless completely new evidence is ever produced to show to the contrary, that Albert didn’t make those marks. Nobody made those marks in 93 after the diary came into sight because it’s a physical impossibility.
I think that since I made this point some while ago a lot of people around here seem to be agreeing.
I’m still interested in anyones views as to how Albert supposedly knew about watch repair/pawn/whatever marks in the first place, and then faked them or got them faked on top of the Maybrick scratches to make the watch more convincing. Did he read it in a book? I’ve got shelves full of watchmaking books going back years and its certainly in none of them. Did he find it on the net? Nope. Try it and see.
Regards to all
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Thanks.
I love how easily the conclusions follow from the premises in these passages. As if they actually lead inevitably from one to the other. "Proof enough to me that..." and "He could not have dared..." and "He was not interested in..."
It's hilarious.
--John (thinking of Schopenhauer here in a world of will and ideas). |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
OK, so Paul can't explain how Maybrick might have made these marks.
Would anyone else care to try?
And Paul, I'd be very careful if I were you about saying something is an "impossibility." Jennifer Pegg reads this thread, you know.
It's nice that you think that, but no one has ever even come close to demonstrating it and the reports announce themselves to be only preliminary and speculation, so I think many of us will probably decide to wait and see just what does prove to be impossible -- assuming any qualified professional ever even gets another look at either artefact that is, not to mention complete access for thorough testing.
By the way, can you explain the miraculous timing of the watch's sudden first public appearance immediately on the heels of the public appearance of a diary saying Maybrick was the Ripper?
I'd love to hear that one, too.
Thanks in advance,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1770
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
John,
I was more interested in the fact that Harrison appears to have paid for the Wild report
Paul,
so Maybrick must have done it?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1771
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
And Paul,
how is it the case that it is impossible after the date you mentioned but possible before it?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1774
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
now we turn to my favourite diary book (sincerely said)
anyway time to point out a contradiction with the above from Harrison (sorry Caz!)
"[Shirely] Harrison suggested that Albert johnson submit it [the watch] for another inspection. this time the examination, at a cost of £587.50, paid for by Johnson, would be carried out by metallurgist Dr. Robert Wild.."
pp70/1
and also
"Albert Johnson's reaction to the forgery allegation is to ask a question. If this were true , why would he risk approximately a thousand pounds submitting the watch to two examinations likely to reveal it to be a hoax."
thats pp 257
so therein lies a question.
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Paul Butler wrote:
Did you think Chris Phillips adequately answered it? I thought he missed the point completely.
I was just explaining why Wild's silver enrichment test couldn't justify a claim that the scratches were old, as you implied.
Feel free to disagree, if you still think it could do.
And please feel free to explain how any of the other observations by Wild or Turgoose could justify such a claim, if you think they could do.
But of course I've asked a number of times now, and no one has been able to explain how they could do.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1776
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
and now am waiting to find out what the answer is to that question.
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1777
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
hey Chris,
do you mind dropping me an email about silver enrichment test.
Cheers in advance
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1778
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
I know its been happening a lot today but i am totally lost.
Paul you write,
I’m still interested in anyones views as to how Albert supposedly knew about watch repair/pawn/whatever marks in the first place, and then faked them or got them faked on top of the Maybrick scratches to make the watch more convincing. Did he read it in a book? I’ve got shelves full of watchmaking books going back years and its certainly in none of them. Did he find it on the net? Nope. Try it and see
i take it you are refering to Turgoose. well how do we know that the marks were there at all before. i thought that was the point i thought no one knew what they meant.
thanks
Jenni
confused as always!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
That's interesting. I wonder who did pay for the Wild report? The two sources seem to contradict either other.
Perhaps there's an explanation.
Nice catch,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
yes i'd like to know how to reconcile the following
"of course, the cynics criticised Albert for not granting R.K. Wild unlimited access to the watch. They ignore the cost of such an excerise.
I could not believe that the scratchings could be anything other than old, in which case the 'modern forgery theory could be dismissed."
and so ends discussion on the Wild report on pp 244 of the 2002 edition of Feldman.
and
from Linder/Morris/Skinner
"[Shirley] Harrison suggested that Albert johnson submit it [the watch] for another inspection. this time the examination, at a cost of £587.50, paid for by Johnson, would be carried out by metallurgist Dr. Robert Wild.."
pp70/1
and also
"Albert Johnson's reaction to the forgery allegation is to ask a question. If this were true , why would he risk approximately a thousand pounds submitting the watch to two examinations likely to reveal it to be a hoax."
thats pp 257
with this
"In January 1994, Albert agreed to submit the watch - at my expense this time - to a second test."
also pp 246 Blake 1998 edition of Harrison.
and we could also note a further contradiction in relation to costs since the figure £1,400 has been banded about on these boards for several weeks
the Blake edition (1998) Harrison
"the report [Turgoose] had cost Albert Johnson several hundred pounds of his own money, which was proof enough to me that there was no skulduggery afoot."
pp 246
Maybe I should email Shirley anyone know her address!! Just kidding!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 1:15 pm: |
|
Jenni,
I'll send you Shirley's e-mail address, if you'd like. And you'll only have to ask once.
It's on its way.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
John,
thanks for that will email you.
Wonder what the truth is
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
"By the way, can you explain the miraculous timing of the watch's sudden first public appearance immediately on the heels of the public appearance of a diary saying Maybrick was the Ripper?"
I'm sure Paul has his own answer for this, but I'll take a stab.
It seems to me that this can be spun either way with equal ease.
1) "Common sense" approach - The Diary is produced, encounters considerable skepticism, and the Watch is hoaxed and produced to provide a greater degree of credibility to the Diary.
2) My thoughts, which I certainly admit don't fit with the "common sense" approach, is that the only way a group like Albert and his buddies would bring the Watch forward would be if they had heard the Maybrick publicity in the first place. Bluntly, I think that if they didn't hoax the Watch, the only way they'd have known to bring the item forward was because they'd heard about Maybrick...I'm not so sure that before I learned about the Case, I'd have assumed much about the Watch other than it's marred by scratches. I'd be annoyed at the shop that sold it to me, but I can't imagine I'd have connected it to the Ripper case. And supposedly there were efforts to remove the scratches.
I think that the time table of discovery, while suspicious, can be explained. I remain unconvinced that either side has landed a knock out blow, and remain puzzled at to how old these items really are.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
I don't quite understand (2).
Do you mean that the timing wasn't a coincidence - that the scratches had already been found some time before, and that Johnson only brought the watch forward when he heard about the publicity for the diary?
Of course, that would imply that he lied about when the scratches were discovered, and also that he lied for no apparent reason ...
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1781
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
hang on Robert hang on Chris
(and this one is just for John)
it remains possible,
but unlikely.
Sorry can't help myself sometimes!!
and on a more serious note I thought the story went the watch scratches were discovered by chance after seeing something about watches on the Antiques Roadshow, chance hey?
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Chris, I'm saying that the same thing that makes us suspicious is in fact also necessary. Without publicity, I don't believe a group of friends discovering the scratches would have brought it forward. If you knew nothing about the Ripper case, would you associate the marks with the case? I wouldn't. I'd be pissed that the watch dealer had sold me a marred watch.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 675
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
So do you mean that the timing wasn't a coincidence - that the scratches had already been found some time before, and that Johnson only brought the watch forward when he heard about the publicity for the diary?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Chris, enough.
It should be pretty clear what I am saying: no Maybrick publicity, no connection made between the Case and the Watch.
Do you really think a group of casual observers would see the scratches, and say "My God, these are the initials of the Five Canonical Victims!!" ?
The thing that makes us suspicious is the same thing necessary for the object to be brought forward.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 676
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 4:10 am: |
|
Sir Robert
I really don't understand what you're suggesting happened in (2). That's why I asked.
But if you just want to say "it should be obvious what I meant" rather than explaining, of course that's your prerogative.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on February 05, 2005) |
Harry Mann
Police Constable
Username: Harry
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Paul,
I acknowledge your expertise with watches,but I believe you underestimate the skill and determination of skilled forgers.Fused or not I do not think the hinges would be a problem.
Whether the experts could rule out a recent date of the scratch marks being made,is a question that has not yet been answered.
Zinc,Copper and Nickel,elements normally mixed with gold,can under certain circumsrances,show a marked deterioration,just examine a coin that has been in the ground for a while. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1810
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Just to let you know I am certain that Albert johnson did pay for both reports. apparently Shirley has said as much herself in public somewhere before that it was a mistake in the Blake edition. i assume it isn't in the most recent edition, but i don't have a copy of that book.
anyway
alls well that ends well
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Interesting, that Harry thinks Albert's watch was hoaxed by a skilled and determined forger. It just shows how diverse the opinions can be concerning the watch-scratcher's talents and motivations and basically what made him - or makes him - tick.
The potential relevance of Albert’s watch-related outgoings versus incomings has always been, and may always be, a personal judgement call. Disappointing as it may be, to those people who would be better suited arguing for the royal ripper conspiracy, the authors of Ripper Diary did not sit down and plot together to leave out the permission fee details (one could almost hear RJ Palmer’s permission fees drum beating in rhythm with the recent posts ) in order to make a grasping Albert appear less grasping.
If Albert is not involved in a hoax, his watch-related finances can only be of passing interest, as part of the bigger picture. The only reason for weighing up the financial evidence is to see if it points to his involvement. But then it’s very much down to the individual to decide whether it does or it doesn’t. If anyone could provide a reliable breakdown of all Albert’s watch-related spending and earnings, a net gain or loss figure might be useful to some of us. But it can - and will - always be argued that some hoaxers are not interested in how much they have to spend to get their hoax off the ground, or how much they might be able to claw back, God willing, or whether they will end up with a net profit.
Whether Mike Barrett is involved in a hoax or not, he turned down a written offer of £15,000 for the diary and then accepted £1 for it.
Whether Albert is involved in a bandwagon hoax or not, he paid for tests at the outset, turned down a written offer of thousands of dollars for the watch, and accepted permission fees offered on the strength of the test results.
If they were involved, I for one would conclude that they didn’t learn their trade at ‘Cheatham & Scarper’. Others may conclude they are simply naïve, supremely dim or have other agendas entirely. Meanwhile they and their artefacts survive, unlike the Hitler Diaries, which fell at the first hurdle, and the joker who forged them, who paid the price for his folly.
A bandwagon watch hoaxer, whatever motivated him in the first place, succeeded in clearing quite a number of hurdles in those early days, didn’t he? Again, it’s up to us as individuals to decide how much luck or good judgement went into this success.
The diary headlines were already screaming ‘HOAX’ when this joker was allegedly making his own. We’ve been through a dozen times what he did next, if this was someone other than Albert, to ensure his work would be discovered without raising the least suspicion in the first group of people he had to fool. That was child’s play compared with the next stage. Whoever the hoaxer was, his work was shortly to be handed over to two professionals not of his own choosing. Albert’s permission fees were earned as a result of favourable test results; had Turgoose and Wild felt unable to reach the conclusions they did, or been able to expose the least sign of the hoaxer’s work, the joke would have ended there.
Had Mike produced a believable or verifiable confession regarding the diary while all this was going on, the watch joke would have ended there. But the joke didn’t end there. And according to the Murphys, the Johnson brothers ‘kept’ going back to their shop in 1993 to ask questions about the watch, and about the various markings it now sported that the joker had added following its purchase in 1992 - including the authentic looking H 9 3 and 1275. Was that all part of the joke too?
And what about the 20789 on the inside rim? Whether or not this refers to a repair made to the watch in July 1889, just two months after Sir Jim’s death, when all his possessions would have been sorted out and distributed, the joker was stuck with it. Would he have judged it a coincidental and unexpected bonus, or a possible spanner in the works? Or did he already know about the mark, and did this influence his decision to use this particular item for his hoax?
Still asking questions, and still intrigued by the joker who made his mark in the watch, regardless of when or who.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
I think you're right, Jenni. Shirley's latest edition appears to have left out the bit about the Wild test being at her expense.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 824
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
Caz, please.
Equating people who point out that your book is biased, slanted and written to point to the conclusions you have already drawn to people who argue the Ripper conspiracy is a sadly pathetic attempt to discredit the very valid argument that your book is biased, slanted and written to point to the conclusions that you have already drawn.
And you can only claim, "well we didn't think that would be of interest" in defense of leaving out salient details in the story so many times before the defense wears thin.
The fact is, as you yourself point out, that it *is* the reader who should determine what is relevant, and they can only do that if they are presented with all of the facts in an unbiased manner. Which your book does not do.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Caroline writes,
"But the joke didn’t end there."
Of course, the work of those who appeared on the scene after the diary appeared must also be considered when evaluating the life-span of these particular hoaxes.
Also, the joke, in many ways, has in fact ended. Not a single person in at least a couple of years has been willing to come to this site and say they think James Maybrick was the Ripper. Not a single expert in the field, that I can think of, is prepared to say that, and nearly all of them, including Skinner and Begg and Evans and Fido and Sugden, etc. all say, in public and in private, that they believe these things are hoaxes. There is no serious case being made anywhere by anyone that I can find claiming the real James Maybrick killed these women, scratched this watch, or wrote this diary. Albert Johnson and Robert Smith both own cheap fakes. That joke should not be forgotten.
So this is just a reminder,
--John
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 13
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 3:55 am: |
|
Caroline,
The skill and determination was shown in the physical preparations.
It has always been the presentation that lacks imaginative thought.
I do not think there was only one person involved in the whole proceedings.I said that the initial idea of a hoax began in the mind of one person,and I am here talking about the watch. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
So what conclusions had I, Seth and Keith already drawn when we wrote the book, since you appear to know more than I do on the subject?
And please support your accusation that the authors had obtained documentation showing Albert's permission fee figures, at the time of submitting our final manuscript to Sutton, and that we took a calculated decision not to include those figures.
By all means accuse us of not being thorough enough for your liking (we never could have been). But otherwise, put up or shut up.
Hi John,
Please cite where Keith Skinner last said he believed 'these things are hoaxes'. Martin Fido may be adamant that the diary is a fake, but even he had to admit the watch evidence had him foxed.
It might be worth remembering here that a hoaxer does not live by faith and publicity alone, but also by the failure of the rest of us to expose him.
It's all very well for you and others to insist that hoaxers do not need to be exposed if their hoaxes so obviously speak for themselves (the watch being condemned not on any of its own evidence but purely because of the diary).
But one thing really is obvious: the moment anyone succeeds in nailing an individual for his/her part in a modern hoax (whether it be an armchair hugger, or one of the various people who have actually investigated the surviving suspects and may have been in a stronger position to catch one of them out), is the moment when you can stop calling for new scientific tests (to prove what you say we already know) and promising we will all be dead before they happen.
And it is also the moment when you can stop accusing people of 'keeping the dream alive.'
Despite your library 'miracle' argument, you still fail, just as everyone else has failed before you, to nail Mike Barrett as an individual with any part in a hoax.
Despite your insistence that the watch was obviously hoaxed as a result of the breaking diary story, while in Albert Johnson's possession, you still fail, just as everyone else has before you, to nail anyone in Albert's immediate home/work circle, as the individual who must have orchestrated the discovery of the scratches in order for the timing of their appearance to be no coincidence.
We have all failed so far: Harris, Skinner, Howells, Begg, Fido, Evans, Sugden, Alan Gray, Scotland Yard, Stanley Dangar, RJ Palmer, Chris George, Chris Phillips, you and yours truly.
And so it continues.
And Robert Smith still misses out on signing up a hoaxer, or co-hoaxer, for that juicy book deal. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 825
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
So what conclusions had I, Seth and Keith already drawn when we wrote the book, since you appear to know more than I do on the subject?
Please. The entire book leads readers away from the idea of a modern forgery. It was crafted and designed that way. If you want to play that you haven't formed any opinions, feel free, but after reading the book, no one is going to believe it.
And please support your accusation that the authors had obtained documentation showing Albert's permission fee figures, at the time of submitting our final manuscript to Sutton, and that we took a calculated decision not to include those figures.
Perhaps you didn't know the financial details but I didn't want to insult you previously by alleging that you would be such completely shoddy researchers as to not know the details. You include information about the contract in your book. How did you find out about the contract? Hearsay? Rumor? Speculation? Did you seriously write about a contract taking place without verifying it? How long did you spend researching this book? Because I managed to get my hands on a copy of an internal document discussing the arrangement and the monetary sum in about two days. What did you do all those years you were researching the book? I mean if you want to state flat out that you never knew what the monetary agreement was and went ahead and printed information you had no documentary evidence for, go ahead, but that pretty much damns you as a researcher.
Put up or shut up
Ah right...because you are just aces at coming through with promised material.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Caroline,
Keith Skinner wrote in an e-mail to me that he not only believes the diary is a hoax but that he has been on record in public saying that repeatedly and that I should feel free to report that he said it. If you'd like, when I get home from work, I'll cite the e-mail date and time and quote the passage as I still have the message on my computer.
While it would be great if the hoaxers were indeed exposed (and perhaps they shall be one day), we certainly don't need this to happen to arrive at the perfectly logical valid and legitimate inductive conclusion that the real James Maybrick did not scratch this watch, write this dairy, or kill these women.
And, of course, no one will come here and say he did. Including you.
There is no real evidence of any sort in either case that links the real James in any way to either of these items or even suggests that they existed in the proper century. And every piece of evidence we do have, from the text to the handwriting and beyond, all indicate the real James did not write this book or scratch this watch or commit these murders. So it's a no-brainer. Perhaps that's why no one around here ever advocates Maybrick as a Ripper candidate.
And I am certainly not trying to "nail" Mike or Albert for anything and I have long said, repeated ad nauseum in fact, that the material evidence to indict them for the creation of these hoaxes has not been produced.
But I'll bet we will indeed all be dead before either artefact gets thoroughly and properly tested again and there will indeed always be those who, here and elsewhere, will continue to work to keep hope alive.
As I wrote earlier, the life-span of these hoaxes has as much to do with behavior of people after the hoaxes appeared as with the work of the hoaxers themselves. That's why it's a wonderful moment of delicious irony when Caroline Morris writes:
It might be worth remembering here that a hoaxer does not live by faith and publicity alone, but also by the failure of the rest of us to expose him.
In one way, at least, she couldn't be more right.
Glad the truth has been expressed so clearly in such an excellent sentence,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 685
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
It might be worth remembering here that a hoaxer does not live by faith and publicity alone, but also by the failure of the rest of us to expose him.
Thou hast said it!
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
