|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 812
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 5:24 pm: | 
|
Sir Robert
I, for one, make no pretence at knowing what the micrographs show or don't show. Very far afield of all of our expertise, IMHO.
I agree, in that I don't think they are necessarily as straightforward to interpret as they may appear.
Certainly, I can look at the micrographs and think, "Yes, I can see why it might appear from that that line A was inscribed before line B".
But when I try to analyse the details of what the micrographs are showing, and ponder what is going to be the effect of line B being more deeply inscribed than line A, and compare the impression you get from the lower-resolution micrographs with what the higher-resolution micrographs show (where they can be compared), I feel beset with doubts.
So should we just accept Turgoose's word for it?
Apart from the fact that my background rebels against accepting anyone's word for anything without at least having an inkling of the evidence it's based on, a couple of things give me pause for thought.
One is that I don't get the impression that Turgoose felt the issue of whether the "repair marks" or the "Maybrick marks" were made first was a crucial one. Certainly I don't think he expected the "old hoax" faction to lay as much stress on the observation as they are doing. It reads as a minor observation in an admittedly preliminary report, which he may not have devoted a huge amount of attention to.
The other is that I honestly don't know whether Turgoose had professional experience of interpreting this kind of evidence or not. He is billed as an expert on corrosion, which explains why he would have had a powerful microscope, but isn't necessarily relevant to interpreting the order in which the scratches were made.
On the whole, I'd still like someone to take me through the evidence before I accepted Turgoose's opinion on this point.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 10:21 pm: |
|
"So should we just accept Turgoose's word for it? "
No, not at all.
"I honestly don't know whether Turgoose had professional experience of interpreting this kind of evidence or not. "
I could be wrong, but wasn't there a recent mention in Ripperologist that they were hoping to interview him? That'd be useful.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
I Know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
AAD wrote: Personally I think that John Omlor is one of the best and most intelligent posters around here. Amazes me how he puts up with the rubbish that constantly appears.
I personally think he has nothing constructive to offer, though his sarcasm is 100% (lowest form of wit don't you know?) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Man, how did I miss this excellent post?
Five days later and I just read it.
In any case, I want to thank the kind sender for including the earlier words of "AAD." The consequence of that was that they appeared here twice.
Still, it's only fair that our friend get the same break. So this is for him or her:
I personally think he has nothing constructive to offer, though his sarcasm is 100% (lowest form of wit don't you know?)
Now we're all even.
Feeling better after doing a good deed,
--John (don't you know?) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
One is that I don't get the impression that Turgoose felt the issue of whether the "repair marks" or the "Maybrick marks" were made first was a crucial one. Certainly I don't think he expected the "old hoax" faction to lay as much stress on the observation as they are doing. It reads as a minor observation in an admittedly preliminary report, which he may not have devoted a huge amount of attention to.
That in itself would at least indicate to me that Dr Turgoose was being objective and professional, by simply recording what he observed. It was certainly not his job to 'feel' whether the order of the markings was crucial. He wasn't commissioned to judge what significance his observations might have for the 'modern' or 'old' arguments, and quite rightly didn't venture into this area.
I don't see too much 'stress' being laid on the order of the markings, as Turgoose recorded them. Either he got the order right, or he didn't.
All the stress appears to be coming from your repeated requests for help with interpreting the micrographs.
I leave you to figure out the implications if Turgoose really was able to see clearly, as his words imply, that 'I am Jack' had a neat little H 9/3 and 1275 engraved over it.
But you're still as far away as you were this time last year from a convincing argument that the Maybrick marks were not 'at least several tens of years old' when Turgoose and Wild examined them and gave their professional opinions, but just a few weeks old.
All we have at present by way of scientific evidence are the reports by Drs Turgoose and Wild. That doesn't mean I have accepted their word for anything, or used it as a foundation for any conclusions. It just means that I have seen no good, objective reasons for rejecting it either.
The reports' observations are there to be considered. And there's no right or wrong way of doing that, if our intentions are to discover the truth. The only wrong way to proceed IMHO would be to ignore them completely, in the hope that one day their evidence may be overturned.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Caroline writes,
"The only wrong way to proceed IMHO would be to ignore them completely, in the hope that one day their evidence may be overturned."
Sure, except if one thing is clear from this whole discussion, it is that it is not at all clear what the phrase "their evidence" actually describes, that is, to what reliable conclusions precisely this phrase properly refers -- especially since both of them deliberately made note of the need for further examination and testing before any conclusions could be considered either definitive or, in parts, even more than simply speculative.
So that's where we are.
Still.
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
But you're still as far away as you were this time last year from a convincing argument that the Maybrick marks were not 'at least several tens of years old' when Turgoose and Wild examined them and gave their professional opinions, but just a few weeks old.
[my emphasis]
But of course, as you know, that phrase you've given in quotation marks isn't even an accurate reflection of the conclusions of Turgoose and Wild, let alone an accurate reflection of anything they presented evidence for.
That doesn't mean I have accepted their word for anything, or used it as a foundation for any conclusions.
And what I have been saying all along is that I don't wish to "accept their word" for anything, unless I can see clear evidence from their observations to support "their word".
Given what you say, I don't understand why it seems to make you uneasy when I ask whether anyone else can see any evidence to support Turgoose's "word" for the Maybrick marks having been made before the so-called "repair marks".
Particularly as you have yourself questioned his interpretation of the slash in the repair mark in the past.
Presumably you don't accept his word for which marks came first either. And quite right too, as you can't see the evidence for it, and nor can anyone else, apparently!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 17, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 9:47 pm: |
|
"Presumably you don't accept his word for which marks came first anyway. And quite right too, as you can't see the evidence for it, and nor can anyone else, apparently!"
Actually, I've said that I have no idea what I am or am not looking for in these micrographs, and the whole exercise is way beyond any field I'd claim expertise in. I suspect that would be true of many objective observers of this "debate".
That's far from saying one can't see "the evidence".
But you knew that.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 837
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 3:18 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Actually, I've said that I have no idea what I am or am not looking for in these micrographs, and the whole exercise is way beyond any field I'd claim expertise in. I suspect that would be true of many objective observers of this "debate".
The point is this. We were told previously, before the reports were released, that it was going to be really "obvious" which marks were made first, and that it wouldn't require any special expertise.
Now I can see features that could make it look as though the "Maybrick marks" had been made first. But I think I can also see how this impression could be misleading, given that the "Maybrick marks" are shallower than the "repair marks".
The point is, did Turgoose just take a quick look at these features, and make an offhand remark on a point that he never expected to be of particular importance?
As I've said before, as far as I can tell, Turgoose's "expertise" lies in the field of corrosion, not necessarily in interpreting micrographs of scratches on metal.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 18, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 9:18 am: |
|
", did Turgoose just take a quick look at these features, and make an offhand remark on a point that he never expected to be of particular importance?
As I've said before, as far as I can tell, Turgoose's "expertise" lies in the field of corrosion, not necessarily in interpreting micrographs of scratches on metal. "
Ripperologist has said they hope to interview Turgoose, and I would think that would cast some light on the whole discussion.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
This scratched watch is so ridiculous that the struggling diary supporters have to try and baffle all with pseudo-scientific argument that does nothing to prove authenticity but acts as a smokescreen to divert attention from the reality of this crass nonsense. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:16 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
The point is, did Turgoose just take a quick look at these features, and make an offhand remark on a point that he never expected to be of particular importance?
Yeah, maybe he just glanced at the scratches for a couple of minutes and jotted down what he thought he saw. It would also have been very unprofessional to judge what may or may not have been of importance to the surrounding investigation.
But hell, why don't you go the whole hog and suggest he may have been a dustman by trade, brought in off the streets by Albert to look at the scratches and guess that the repair marks were made over 'I am Jack'?
Who's desperate now?
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
this is not a game, people, this is someones life we are dealing with here,
or had that been forgotten?
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
Caroline asks,
Who's desperate now?
But fortunately, the very same post that asks the question demonstrates the answer.
At least it's efficient.
I agree, Jenni. But I can't say I'm surprised by her response.
Sad, this one,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
But hell, why don't you go the whole hog and suggest he may have been a dustman by trade, brought in off the streets by Albert to look at the scratches and guess that the repair marks were made over 'I am Jack'?
Well, I know that Dr Turgoose was not a dustman, but I must admit I have no idea at all what field he was trained in.
Do you? Can you tell us whether he was a physicist, a chemist, an engineer, a metallurgist or what?
Do you know whether he held an academic post, or whether he was a research associate or a research student, or a technician or what when he performed the tests?
I know he has published on the subject of corrosion, but do you have any reason at all to believe that he had any expertise in interpreting scratches on metal, or any experience in evaluating artificially aged artefacts?
If Turgoose's report contained clear evidence for the priority of the marks, or indeed any evidence that anyone here could see, that would be one thing.
But if we are expected to take his word on this as an "expert", then these questions have to be asked. If you're not prepared to ask them, you could at least cut out the silly sarcastic responses to people who are.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Chris,
really do you think if she did she would be going on about dustmen?
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Dr S.Turgoose
Lecturer in Corrosion Science and Engineering
MA, PhD
http://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/CPC/Old%20Pages/ST.htm
more about the corrosion centre
http://www.cp.umist.ac.uk/CPC/About_Us/Teaching.htm
I should point out that as far as i understand it UMIST no longer exists and the Manchester Universities were merged together to make Universtiy of Manchester.
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Jenni
I suppose not, but I still find surprising the things that didn't get researched when Caroline Morris and her colleagues were writing that big thick book.
Faced with a scientific report that makes surprising claims (to put it mildly), the first instinct of most academics would be to ask "Who is the author, and what is his/her track record?". But perhaps the instinct of the layman is different.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Chris,
Surprise! surprise! (Cilla black)
Jenni
ps though seriously, i don't know if the layman is so different. I mean if i were to say i had done it you would call me up and rightly so since i don't have the first clue about corrosion testing.
"All you need is positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1663
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Well, you won't be the first person who ever questioned a diary or watch test, and I don't suppose you'll be the last.
But you obviously think there is no chance that Drs Turgoose and Wild could have been other than wrong to believe the scratches could be several decades old.
And you obviously think there is no chance that Alec Voller was right about the diary ink not being Diamine, or right to believe the writing was 90+ years old in 1995.
Hi Jenni,
this is not a game, people, this is someones life we are dealing with here,
Yeah, well that's the point I was trying to get across with my obviously extreme dustman observation. Chris started the game by wondering if - or was it really hoping that - Dr Turgoose 'just' took a 'quick look' and made 'an offhand remark'.
Curiously, it's just fine when Chris and others insist that certain professionals must have been wrong. But it's far from fine if I so much as suggest that we don't yet know which professionals who have examined the artefacts got things right and which got things wrong.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
[usual sort of chaff snipped]
Sorry to go on, but does that mean you really don't have any idea what subject Turgoose was qualified in?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Now I remember why it is I like diary world so much! It's so fun!
Hi Caz,
I don't think you understand what Chris is saying.
Primarily, he's just asking if anyone can make out the evidence that the scientists are referring to.
The way you have reacted anyone would think he had suggested a public lynching of the academics involved. That is not what he did. He was merely trying to ascertain some facts.
Is it wrong to ask what the people who conducted the tests were experts in chemistry or physics or whatever?
No one is saying anyone must have been wrong.
I do not think that (they must have been wrong) about these tests. Chris does not think that, John O. does not think that. Yes, I speak for them in saying that, because your implication is clear - that whatever these tests had said, whoever had conducted them, however many hours they had taken over it, however clear the evidence was, our responses would have been the same. That we would say, oh sh** the bed, these results clearly show the watch (or diary) must be old and so what we're going to do is, instead of say, oh we were wrong, we were wrong about the tin match box, we were wrong about the complete lack of a history for the artefact, we were wrong about the poste house, we were wrong about the handwriting not being James', we were wrong about all those things , instead of that, whatever the other factors, we would try and dig a great big hole into the science with our spades and our tiny bored brains, whilst hugging our armchairs. Or perhaps in between pulling the wings off of flies and other insects, or perhaps after being herded off cliffs by mad sheep dogs (hi John), or maybe whilst burning books, because we're just sods and rather than admit the truth that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, what we like to do, for a laugh, and also because we are sods, is build speculation on speculation, dance around logic and the truth and see how many facts we can skew in our favour, even though we don't actually believe any of it. Yes, truly that is what is going on here. No, the following isn't the version of events that happened at all - Chris didn't ask a few simple questions because when he looked at the micrograph he couldn't make out what the guy was on about - then we all danced around like children in f**king country dancing classes, trying to make out each other were idiots. Hugging our armchairs because we can!
So basically what I'm saying is that no one is stating the professionals must have been wrong. Chris is asking a question. No one expects you to be a fountain of knowledge on everything. You are after all only human. If you do not know something just say I do not know the answer to that. we will say oh ok, i only asked you because i assumed you did, clearly I didn't know either else i would not be asking.
Now I would not dream of insulting scientists.
BTW this is totally the wrong thread to be having this discussion on, but then we knew that already, I guess
Cheers
Jenni
ps was that a little too sarcastic?
pps it should be clear to you I am fully prepared in every sense for science to prove me wrong and to accept and embrace the consequences of that!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 862
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
And as it appears that question is going to join the long list of questions that you find it more convenient to ignore, here's another one.
As a general principle, why is it that in certain cases you are willing to cast your critical faculties aside, and simply accept some people's statements as fact, even though you can't see any evidence to support them?
Is it when they have Ph.D.s - because that seems to be just about the only thing you do know about Turgoose's qualifications?
Or is it this word "professional" that keeps cropping up? If an opinion has been paid for, it acquires some sort of extra credibility, no matter whether there's any evidence to back it up or not?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
../4922/13710.html"#DEDDCE"> |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 863
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Jenni
in the vein hope this conversation can be continued on the right thread, here is the right thread,
Thanks, but maybe it's best not continued.
We've been having this discussion about the authority of scientific "experts" for years now, and I think it really represents the unbridgeable gap between the scientific approach and the perceptions of a section of laypeople.
Questioning people's statements, and wanting to see the evidence for them, is meat and drink for scientists. No scientist worth his/her salt would say "Well, that conclusion is a bit unexpected, and no evidence is presented for it, but the author has a Ph. D. so I'd better accept his word for it."
Some laypeople, on the other hand, evidently see things more in terms of the incontrovertible authority of the "expert", or the qualified professional. So far from instinctively asking questions, apparently they're outraged when anyone does ask one - and say things like "why don't you go the whole hog and suggest he may have been a dustman by trade, brought in off the streets".
I think the gap really is unbridgeable, so probably it's best to let the question lie.
Chris Phillips
PS By the way, Caroline Morris's snobbishness about dustmen is really quite funny. In the last department I worked in, "The dustmen do a more useful job than we do" was a truism often bandied around in more cynical moments.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 6:46 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I don't think you understand what Chris is saying.
I obviously don't. But your explanations don't help.
No one is saying anyone must have been wrong.
Forgive me, but yes, effectively they are. Chris, for one, is as insistent as they come that the diary, and therefore the watch, are modern fakes. The non-scientific evidence proves it beyond doubt, as far as he and others are concerned, and the science has just not caught up yet. That is the reason why Chris and others are questioning certain observations and opinions, and the qualifications of those doing the testing, while accepting, without pause for breath, the AFI result, for instance, and the testimony of Dundas, for another instance.
Chris then asks of me:
why is it that in certain cases you are willing to cast your critical faculties aside, and simply accept some people's statements as fact, even though you can't see any evidence to support them?
And my response is to ask him where I have ever stated my 100% acceptance of anyone's statements in this saga without question. I have on numerous occasions admitted that I simply don't know, and have no certain way of knowing at present (which is surely why further work needs to be done, such as comparing the diary writing's appearance today with how it looked back in 1992, and 1995, and finding out more about those fluorescent marks), which opinions, observations and results to put my trust in, and which I need to be more cautious about.
And this is why I can't conclude anything definite, and why I won't wholly endorse or wholly condemn any of the individual professionals involved.
(But if I tend to think Alec Voller's opinions, for example, should perhaps be considered more seriously than a claim about the ink originating from Mike Barrett, so condemn me for that; I'll just have to live with it.  )
Chris, you saw snobbishness in my post that wasn't there, so what does that say about your true opinion of what dustmen do for a living? You would be the first to have objected if a dustman had really been chosen to analyse the scratches, since you are obviously hoping that Dr Turgoose is similarly unlikely to be suitably qualified to have had a bash at it. Have you any evidence to support this hope?
I wouldn't know what qualifications would give someone exactly the right kind of expertise, whether it concerns analysing scratches on gold or chemical analysis of the diary ink; I haven't got a scientific bone in my body (which observation just shows how crap I am at biology! )
I have to leave that sort of thing to others; another reason why I won't be accepting or rejecting anything yet - the 'others' have to get their act together first.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 24, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
Caroline Morris writes:
"Chris, you saw snobbishness in my post that wasn't there, so what does that say about your true opinion of what dustmen do for a living?"
And we have officially reached a new low point here in Diary World -- where now we are arguing not about whether Maybrick was the Ripper or not, not about whether the book is a fake or not, not even about whether it's an old fake or a modern fake, but about who feels more strongly concerning dustmen and what they do for a living.
And amidst all this nonsense, if you read closely, you'll see that this discussion, like every discussion held with her on these boards during the past few years on every topic diary related, has collapsed into the very same thing -- Caroline Morris writing the words,
"I simply don't know."
Whether it's the Poste House or "tin matchbox empty" or the library miracle story or the mistakes about the murders or the modern letter formations an expert found or the complete lack of any verifiable provenance or the timing of the watch's first appearance or any of the other indications that this is all a modern hoax, whether it's the constant lies of the people who brought the diary forward, no matter what it is, whenever we argue about it, whenever we discuss it, (whenever anyone offers any common sense simple and logical explanation that accounts for all these things-- and even whenever they don't), every discussion with Caroline, no matter how long it lasts (days, weeks, months, years), and no matter how irrelevant and circular and repetitious and pointless it becomes (and they all do at some point), and no matter what it might appear she is arguing either for or against, ALL eventually are reduced to this point -- Caroline coming here and amidst a flurry of words, saying just one thing really -- she simply doesn't know.
Apparently, unlike many people here, her position on all things diary-related, her position on everything discussed on any of these threads is always finally and ultimately the same - she simply doesn't know.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that. Indeed, in many respects I admire a healthy skepticism. Sure, I'm going to say I know things, I know the moon landing was not faked, I know the earth is not flat, and I know the real James did not kill these women or write this stupid book, a book that is error-ridden, cites a line from a source generally available only in modern times, has modern letter formations, is melodramatically but deliberately composed, and contains other numerous simple and logical indications of a modern moment of composition. Sure, I might say I know those things even though I also know there are websites full of people who pimp the other craziness (that we never went to the moon and that the earth is flat and even, among certain "yahoos" apparently, that James was the Ripper). Sure, I'm going to actually take those positions and argue in favor of them here. But still, the truth is, I have always found skepticism and agnosticism attractive as intellectual habits.
However, to come here and spend thousands of waking hours writing millions and millions of words for the sole purpose of saying "I just don't know," isn't only skepticism, it is downright awe-inspiring.
I've never done the math, but I'd bet that in the past couple years, practically no one has written here as often and with such tedious and mind-numbing length and in such ridiculous ways as I have. Several times people have posted here asking me the question why I bother when it's clear that I don't believe in the diary or the Maybrick candidacy and that I clearly think all of this is a silly, pointless, circular and trivial waste of time. And I have responded, often at sickening length, on what fascinates me about this illogical, senseless, psychologically intriguing, rhetorically hilarious, perverse little world of ours down here in the basement.
So now, perhaps, someone should ask Caroline.
Dear Mrs. Morris,
If every time you come here, every discussion you engage in eventually ends the same way -- with you claiming you "simply don't know," then why exactly do you keep doing this?
Why can't we just assume that no matter what the argument, no matter what the issue, if the question is related to when the diary was written and whether or not it is real and whether or not James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, you "simply don't know"?
Would we be misunderstanding something if we assumed that?
If not, if that would be an accurate assumption, then what reason would you have for pursuing these discussions here?
I know why I waste my time here. I've explained it repeatedly. So asking me why I do it is asking a question that's already been answered.
Why do you?
Genuinely curious this morning,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 866
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Jenni
Thanks for trying to talk some sense to Caroline Morris, but I'm afraid the consequence was as expected. It's a new twist on the old adage:
Logic in, garbage out
I'm not going to correct this jumble of misinformation yet again. Some of these misstatements have been corrected at least a dozen times already, and they keep coming back just the same. Replying only encourages her.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 24, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
What misinformation, Chris?
The fact that you have expressed your belief time and time again here that the diary and watch cannot be anything other than modern?
If you can assure me I am wrong about this, it will come as a most pleasance surprise, although I may remain slightly sceptical.
Or is it my admission to being unqualified to judge which 'experts' are likely to be more reliable than others?
If you are suggesting that this is misinformation, and that I am in fact qualified to judge, I will be even more pleasantly surprised, but even more sceptical too.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
...Sorry...What?...only iwas just hugging my armchair here...
did someone metnion leather apron?
No i didn't think so?
Why should the dustman pay for the doctor?...oh sorry wrong message boards!
This message board isnt about dustmen, funny that.
why don't you read my post again. why don't you at least read Chris it saves so much time typing in the exact same thing again and again.
'I wouldn't know what qualifications would give someone exactly the right kind of expertise, whether it concerns analysing scratches on gold or chemical analysis of the diary ink; I haven't got a scientific bone in my body'
thats nice but that wasnt what was being asked now is it - what was being asked was what qualifications Dr Turgoose had.
The basement is the darkest room in the house John, perhaps that should tell us all something about ourselves!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Hmmmm... 
No answer to the question, Caroline?
I've answered it. Why won't you?
--John
PS: Hi Jenni. Watch and see if any response to my post appears. And if it does, watch and see what it says. Just for fun. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Hi John,
lovely sunny day here. How's Florida?
I doubt she will answer the question, not when dustmen are being slandered, oh wait,
anyway,
perhaps now i said that she will,
though perhaps now i said that she wont
though..you can see where this is going already
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 867
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
What misinformation, Chris?
Can't you read?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Yes, I suppose you are right.
Of course, the next question would be why she might not answer it. I had no problem doing so.
Well, at least we can learn things from noticing which questions aren't answered.
Or perhaps the answer has already been given. Perhaps the answer to the question of "why?" is the same as the answer to all of these questions -- she "simply doesn't know."
Perhaps.
Florida is a bit cool this morning. It may not get to 70 here.
But we'll back into the 80s before too long.
Happy to talk about the weather when there's nothing else,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
John,
i often suppose i am right, sometimes that is a grave mistake.
We can certainly notice things by noticeing which things aren't answered.
I am sure diary world would make an interesting psychological analysis.
80 F?
Whats that in proper money? (as in centigrade?)
Just kidding!!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1673
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I am sure diary world would make an interesting psychological analysis.
Yes, funnily enough, I said much the same thing within weeks of arriving in this place at the end of 1998, when anyone not singing loudly from the same modern hoax song sheet was immediately branded bad or mad by certain pseudonymous poison pens.
Not accepting unconditionally another person's argument or opinion is not always a sign of a hidden agenda, vested interest or mental problems. But it is obviously more comfortable for anyone who has invested all their intellectual powers and credibility into a certain opinion to suggest one of these options, than to face the prospect that someone might actually be challenging them (even doubting them) sincerely and seriously, without malice aforethought or madness-and-no-thought. The stronger the belief, the more likely the believer is going to feel personally insulted by any show of agnosticism, to the point of lashing out with the tired old bad or mad stuff.
No original thought going on here as usual then.
I can read that much at least, Chris.
So, Chrissy-Wissy, are you still worried that Dr Turgoose's observations may not tell the correct story regarding the order of the scratches?
Or have I got that the wrong way round? Are you in fact more worried that they might - in which case you would have to argue that the H 9/3 and 1275 were both part of a 1993 hoax?
How worried on a scale of one to ten would that make you?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Caroline Morris, who does not mention me and so is clearly talking about others, finally writes:
No original thought going on here as usual then.
And I think it's nice that she takes the time to let us know what's going on in her posts even as she writes them. It cuts down on reading time.
She might have also mentioned that there's no actual evidence offered either, so we wouldn't have to look for it. Of course, since all the evidence in the text supports a modern date of creation, she's probably not too keen on mentioning that.
In fact, concerning the question of how to explain the evidence in the text, one could almost say she "simply doesn't know."
And that would bring us right back to where we started (and where all these discussions end eventually).
Chrissy-Wissy,
Hey, be glad at least she can bring herself to say some version of your name. Mine has apparently replace YAWEH's on the "must not be uttered" list. It's nice to be sacred.
Chuckling at the antics,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
I'm laughing so much here because yesterday Robert Anderson said to me maybe we can discuss this politely.
I'm happy to be polite, in fact it is something i would encourage around here, why aren't you happy to be polite Caz?
off the top of my head, your post above,
armchair hugging
book burning/insect wing removal
mad sheep dog
my spelling
not very polite is it?
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
All Hail John V. Omlor the supreme ruler of the world!
hey John our posts crossed!!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
'Not accepting unconditionally another person's argument or opinion is not always a sign of a hidden agenda, vested interest or mental problems. '
thank goodness else there would be a few of us needed locking up i should think!
me for one!
Like Janet says
Insight to what's going on
Information keeps us strong
What you don't know can hurt you bad
Take it from me you'll be walkin' around sad
Cryin' for a better day
Until you educate for a better way
So if you wanna be in control
Ya gotta get yourself in the know
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Man, if only I could find someone I could abdicate that throne for...
Shirking my duties,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
John,
now you know how Queen Elizabeth feels!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 894
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
So, Chrissy-Wissy, ...
Wow! Someone's cage really has been rattled, hasn't it?
... are you still worried ...
I'm not worried either way.
I only asked if anyone else could see any evidence to support Turgoose's opinion about the order the marks were made in.
I'll continue to ask if you or anyone else can see any.
Can you, Cazzy-Wazzy?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
Chris,
anyone would have thought you asked a simple question about something, like five months ago and were still waiting for an answer.
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Police Constable
Username: Helge
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but no one has ever tried to simply ask Turgoose about this issue with the watch? Now that would be getting at least somewhere..
(I have, answer pending. Just in case someone asks; why don't you!)
After all, he may turn out to be human.
I cannot in my wildest imagination see Maybrick as JtR. (some argumets that roughly coincide with mine found here: http://www.parmaq.com/truecrime/JackTheRipper1.htm Wow, that saved me a lot of typing hahah)
Seriously, there should be no reason to bicker over things that might be resolved by comparatively easy "research"
And what ARE we doing on this thread ;)
(Donning my kevlar flak west, expecting to get caught in the crossfire)
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 901
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Hedge
Correct me if I am wrong, but no one has ever tried to simply ask Turgoose about this issue with the watch? Now that would be getting at least somewhere..
Apparently there's some talk of Turgoose being interviewed for Ripperologist.
Of course, it may be that he wouldn't want to be interviewed - who could blame him?
But if he is, his answers may be interesting.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Police Constable
Username: Helge
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 2:37 am: |
|
Thanks for that info, Chris. I know Turgoose probably would never do it, but I tried to talk him into giving a few statments here on these boards.
As I said, it probably will never happen, but there you go..
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
AD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
One of the most obvious things that shows the silly diary is a modern hoax is how it is based so much on the letters and modern ideas of the Ripper. The diary would have you believe that the writer was responsible for the Dear Boss letter, the Goulston Street graffitus and the From Hell letter. Not only that, in its efforts to convince it uses phrases or words from the Dear Boss letter to a ridiculous degree:
"Whore"/"whores"/"whoring" - 102 times.
"Funny little" - 9 times.
"Next time" - 9 times.
"Ha, Ha's" - 34 times.
"Red stuff" - 3 times.
"Curse..." - 14 times.
A little OTT don't you think? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Hi,
The reason i hardly ever contribute towards the Diary Thread, is i consider it to be purely invented to reach out to gullible people with the main intention of commercial success.
Every time i read it i cringe at the content.
The fact is Everbody knows it is a fake regardless of age, and the saga only lives on because it is not the trying to prove its genuiness that now applies but the oppposite.
Regards Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
Yes, I did write to Dr Turgoose, but I haven't heard back from him yet. That's not necessarily a bad sign. It may just mean he is too busy with other things right now and wants to read more about the whole subject before putting pen to paper again - or maybe not.
Hi All,
I always think of Chrissy-Wissy (as in Chris Tarrant of Tiz-waz, OTT - thanks AD for reminding me! - and 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' fame) when I'm writing to Christophers. I think I may have called Chris George this in the past, but I don't remember so much fuss being made about it.
No need for anyone's cage to be rattled. If I address Robert Anderson as 'Sir Bobby', I won't be expecting him or anyone else to shed crocodile tears over it.
By the way, in case you missed it Chris, I already explained that I don't feel qualified to interpret the micrographs and ascertain whether they appear to support Turgoose's written observations; don't appear to support them; or don't help one way or another.
You really will have to direct your question to someone other than me - someone who might actually claim to be able to help would be good.
Hi Jenni,
You wrote to Chris:
anyone would have thought you asked a simple question about something, like five months ago and were still waiting for an answer.
Well maybe the answer isn't as simple as the question sounds, I don't know. Why do you think no one has come forward to help?
Love,
Caz
X |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
