| Author |
Message |
    
Travis Bickle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 8:59 am: | 
|
Hello People
Maybe someone brought this up before, and I apologize if that's so, but I compared the "K" on the watch. (the one on Maybrick's name). It looks very familiar to the "K" on the Maybrick will.
Best,
Trav |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 109
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Hello Trav.
It has been raised before, but there’s absolutely no harm in bringing it up again. It might even revive the watch topic. (Heaven forbid!)
It does look like whoever made the watch scratches did a far better job at attempting to copy James' own handwriting than the diarist did, if copying it be.
Have you ever tried scratching your name into metal? It bears only a passing resemblance to your normal handwriting style due to the laborious and unnatural way you are forced to write. Making the scratches inside of something is even harder, particularly with something like a watch movement in the way. (The Maybrick watch doesn’t hinge open at the back to access the inner back, this has to be done by hinging the movement out from the front.)
This has always made me wonder, (if either or both are hoaxes), that they were done by two completely different people at possibly very different times. Could the diary have been hoaxed on the back of the watch, rather than the other way around? If the scratches do belong to James, then could someone have concocted the diary to try to reinforce the "evidence" they had found in the watch?
Regards
Paul
|
Travis Bickle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Hello, Paul
Good point. The watch convinced me that Maybrick is the Ripper. Mostly because of Turgoose's inspection. I can't see anybody having the skill of forging a Diary, plus the skill it would take to age the scratches in the watch perfect enough to fool experts. If both would happen to be forgeries, then I'm sure, also ,it was two different people.
Best
Trav |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hello Travis Bickle
Just out of interest: which do you think has a greater probability of being genuine or, to avoid the inevitable attacks, at least older than modern forgery would dictate?
Mr P. |
Travis Bickle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Hi Mr P.
I would say the watch has the greater probability of being genuine. I think it would be extremely hard to age scratches in the watch well enough to fool metalurgists with the instuments they use to test it. Also because the scratches were proved to be under the repair marks. This seems to be impossible. I think the diary would be easier to forge. At first, I kind of thought the diary was forged, but now I believe both to be authentic.
Best
Trav the Taxi Driver |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 110
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Hi Trav the taxi driver, and Hi to Mr P again!
It’s pleasing to see that the good stuff concerning the watch and the order of the scratches etc. hasn’t been completely lost amongst all the waffle, and that those with independent minds can take the trouble to see through it all. Good for you!
As you seem to say, the order of the scratches is something that is blindingly obvious, and nothing whatever to do with tests, opinion, bias etc. Simple observation being all that is needed to provide the answers. Since I first had sight of the watch reports, I’ve amassed possibly the largest and most useless collection of watch repair marks that exists anywhere I should think. I’ve even come across other uses of 9/3 and have a half plausible explanation as to what that might mean. It doesn’t much matter of course, what is most important is the strong evidence that the watch was repaired, (maybe twice, or three times if you count Tim Dundas), since the Maybrick scratches were made.
I’m certainly in agreement that there is far more evidence that the watch scratches are of considerable age than the diary ink, although the balance of expert opinion does support the diary being written much earlier than many hoax theories will allow. I certainly think that the answer to the question as to which came first, the diary or the watch, the answer will be watch for me every time.
As to the genuineness of either, the jury is still out for me on both counts until I hear something that convinces me either way. I haven’t heard it yet. Not in here.
Regards to both, and keep ‘em coming.
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1718
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Please go here and read to the end of the thread:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=122573#POST122573
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
In fact, Paul, I don't think anyone has concluded on scientific grounds that the diary was created after 1970 (at the very latest). And apart from the 1994 AFI result, which only a few committed modern hoax theorists and non-scientists today treat as gospel, there is precious little hard scientific evidence to suggest that the writing couldn't be many decades old.
Hi Trav,
In Ripper Diary there are photos of the Maybrick signature scratched into the watch surface and the genuine article on Maybrick's marriage licence (as opposed to the certificate).
Some may disagree, but the ks here too look strikingly (sorry!) similar to my mind.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2935
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi everyone,
hey Caz perhaps you could, follow these instructions,
write your name on some paper
scratch your name on some metal, say a coin
I'll see you in Brighton to compare notes
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 113
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Hi Jen.
Done that. I know you addressed your request to Caz, but I thought I’d give it a go.
I scratched it into some soft brass which is a lot closer to the consistency of gold than the much harder nickel or bronze of a coin. It looks just like a very wonky version of my full signature I use on cheques and the like.
What now?
Hi again Caroline.
I just re read Ripper diary for the umpteenth time. Making no gratuitous reference to matches whatsoever its so true that whoever created the watch scratches was able to make a much better job of James’ writing than the diarist. I wonder why?
Our diary hoaxer on the other hand, got his precious brew of genuine Victorian powdered ink and bottled mineral water just right so as to fool the world, and then used it to make a fake Maybrick diary in someone other than James’ handwriting!
Clever stuff!
Regards to all.
Paul
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Hi ho Caroline Anne Morris
there is precious little hard scientific evidence to suggest that the writing couldn't be many decades old
In fact, I would say there is ....none?
Hello Paul Butler
Truly you are laughing in the face of danger! I kid you not. You better hope that Travis Bickle can provide covering fire.
Howdy JVO
I thought you were going away ?
Wiping McDonalds pickle off my keyboard
Mr P.
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 4:47 am: |
|
Hi ho Travis Bickle
Fair play to you for coming out and saying you believe both to be authentic!
Only a man armed to the teeth with a sliding gun up his sleeve and a nasty mohawk would be brave enough to come out and say it on these threads!
Mr P. |
Travis Bickle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
John,
Thank You. I read the posts. And I understand the confusion with the repair marks above the initials, etc, but the particles from the engraving tools being corroded and still in the scratches tell me that Turgoose is right about the "tens of years old theory".
Best
Trav
Caz,
Thank You for the Post. I don't want to be repetitive and get everyone mad, but the "y", the "M" in Maybrick, the "K". They all look like Maybrick's writing to me. By the way. I enjoyed your book. It was very interesting.
Best
Trav |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1437
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Hi ho
Hi ho
Hi how many "Unregistered Poster" pseudonyms are you using at the moment, Mr Poster/Lars/... ?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1729
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Here's a question -- if you think the watch handwriting looks like Maybrick's and that tells us something, then it must look nothing at all like the diary's handwriting, right?
So what does that tell us?
--John
PS: Lars -- Trav need not be armed. People who think Maybrick was actually the Ripper aren't likely to get to grilled here. It's not necessary. People who don't think James was Jack and still play little "match the K" games for their own inexplicable purposes are, of course, another story.
PPS: If you really care, Lars, I am now getting work done, I'm glad to say. Fortunately, short simple posts have been all that's necessary around here lately, since nothing is really happening, and I've had plenty of time to squeeze them in. |
Travis Bickle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 11:44 am: |
|
John
Excuse me for not posting this a few minutes ago. It slipped my mind. I wanted to add this. If a forger signed Maybrick's name to the watch. Plus the Initials. How could he insert corroded pieces of metal into the scratches. This is what is puzzling me. It just seems like it cannot be done.
Best
Trav |
Travis Bickle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
John
Thankx for not jumping all over me. I was reading the other posts on this subject. I,m staying out of the arguments!
There are certain parts of the Diary (at least I think so), that resemble Maybrick's writing. But a forger could easily do that. He could pick certain letters out to copy to catch the readers' attention. It's time for me to pull out some other books and read the Diary again. I should be back in a few days.
Take Care
Trav the Taxi Driver |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:19 am: |
|
Hi ho CHris PHilips
Ehhh.........how do infer anything from a casual Hi ho???????
Oh no, I know.....you are reading one of the many meanings in the text "hi ho".
Just me today
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Travis,
We now have over a dozen samples of the real Maybrick's writing. None of them look anything remotely like the writing in the diary. No expert has ever said they do.
So if the writing on the watch looks like James's to you and that tells you something, then the fact that the writing in the diary looks nothing like either should tell you something too. Logically speaking, that is.
Enjoy the reading, and please read Mr. Melvin Harris's dissertations on the diary here on the Casebook site when you are finished re-reading the diary.
All the best,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Hi ho mR POser
I'd be more convinced if you could arrange for Lars Nordman to back you up!
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Travis,
I quite agree that it's unlikely that a forger would be able to insert corroded metal into the scratches. That would be quite a delicate procedure to say the least. There are a couple of alternate possibilities however.
An old tool could have shed a bit of it's corroded surface. (This was proposed by Melvyn Harris) If the forger had chosen to use a period tool to make his mark, it could very well be in poor shape.
Another possibility is that the person who made the marks was aware of the potential that portions of the tool would be left behind. (Of course we would have to assume that the person who did so wasn't a complete idiot, and that after choosing to forge the watch he actually did a little research. Farfetched perhaps, but it's certainly possible.)
Brass is not difficult to corrode in short order. There are many off the shelf products that will do it, and it can be done with a simple application of vinegar. A corroded brass particle doen't necessarily indicate an OLD brass particle.
Of course, it COULD be old, but the evidence to date is inconclusive at best.
Best regards,
John |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 89
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 12:44 am: |
|
Question:
How did Maybrick know the real names of the victims? Did they tell him their full names before he killed them? Why did he use the initials he did on the watch? Why Not LL for Long Liz or MAN for Mary Ann Nichols? Just before killing Elizabeth Stride did he ask her what initials he should put in his watch to remember her by? It didn't happen. No way. The watch cannot be something that Maybrick carved initials in. A sexual killer would not take the time to be precise about the exact names of his victims so that he could make sure he got the initials right. Neither would these gals tell him their full names. They would be just "polly" or "Liz". Prostitutes have no surnames. It really is impossible that Maybrick fixed up the watch. So... why even spend time on it? Is it just to see if this forger had anything to do with the diary? If not, these threads should be closed and important things worked on in my opinion. Does it really matter when the etchings were made as they are phony regardless of the date?
Please. There are so many other things to work on... like grafitti and aprons and barbers, oh my!
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Mike,
If we were to assume for the sake of argument that Maybrick was the Ripper and DID put the initials into the watch, then it would seem that the newspapers would be the logical source of info. The diary does refer to newspapers.
But I do agree with you in general. It's not typical for serial killers to personify their victims that way. (It's not impossible of course, but it would be highly unusual.) The whole thing seems far more like a device to identify the watch as "Jack the Ripper's" watch and to tie it to the Maybrick story.
As far as why spend time on it... why not? It's not important in the grand scheme of things, but then neither is most of what we do here. It's an interesting side puzzle that doesn't contribute to the search for the historical Jack the Ripper, but it certainly has it's place in the ever growing mythology of Jack.
Best regards,
John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 4:35 am: |
|
Hi
As far as why spend time on it... why not? It's not important in the grand scheme of things, but then neither is most of what we do here. It's an interesting side puzzle that doesn't contribute to the search for the historical Jack the Ripper, but it certainly has it's place in the ever growing mythology of Jack.
Well said John Hacker!
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:13 am: |
|
Hey ho Chris Phillips
Lars is sitting here beside me as I type and I am always confident he will agree with me. Say hello Lars...."Hello folks. Lars." I do apologise for the capitals but the shift KeY iS rIghT BEsiDE my CapS LOCk KEy.
Hello JVO. Indeed I am glad you are getting your work done. One has to keep food on the table after all.
Appreciating that this is a watch thread and not a diary thread and that the answer to these questions is probably buried in the depths of the morass:
Has Colin Wilson changed his mind about the diary or is he still preserved in amber?
I finally read Melvyn F.'s article in the Mammoth Book of JTR. Were those questions of his finally answered by some one or are they still flapping in the wind?
Hello Travis
Indeed do read Melvin H's dissertations and then grab a chemistry book and wonder how he placed so much faith in his chloroacetamide results.
Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts,
Mr P.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Hi Mr P,
...and wonder how he placed so much faith in his chloroacetamide results ???
Some things are obvious and have nothing to do with science. 
Hi John H,
Welcome back! The most balanced voice we are likely to hear putting the case for a modern watch hoax.
Still no evidence though. 
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1745
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Caroline,
Two posts, two digs at Melvin Harris.
Any reason today?
--John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Hiya Caz,
There's plenty of evidence to suggest a recent origin. Unfortunately it's all circumstantial. Just like the evidence being used to support the possibility of the scratches being old. Without a provenance for thing, we're in a bit of a bind.
With what we have it's easy to build a circumstantial case that it's a recent hoax, or alternatively, that it's an old hoax. I think that of the two scenarios, the current evidence more strongly supports the first one. But I am always open to rethinking my position if anything substantial to support an older origin should ever turn up.
Best regards,
John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
John O.
explain!!!!??
thank you very much this is now five words!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Hi John,
There's plenty of evidence to suggest a recent origin. Unfortunately it's all circumstantial.
Could you give us a few examples of all this circumstantial evidence for the watch scratches being modern? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. And I'm damned sure Albert wouldn't.
And please don't wheel Dundas out again, as if he is a reliable authority on the matter, otherwise I'll be obliged to counter with H 9/3 and 1275. 
Love,
Caz
X |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
Hiya Caz,
I'm at work, so they'll have to be a few short examples.
- The timing of the scratches "discovery"
- The discovery story is suspicious at the very least
- The excessive wear in the back. There is no reason it should have the amount of scratches that it apparently does.
- The description of the topmost scratches as having sharp edges. That's not consistent with an attempt to polish out the scratches, but it's very consistent with an attempt to artificially age the scratches.
- Given the supposed polishing, the hydrocarbon "contamination" on the surface is odd as well.
Best regards,
John |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
John H.
If a piece of the tool broke off in the scratch. It would corrode, as it did. If it was a forger using an old tool, I think there would be more corroded pieces that would be breaking off as he wrote. Not just at one spot.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Eddie,
You may be right about more pieces breaking off. But how many of them would remain embedded in the brass?
I'm not really advocating that as the answer of course. Given what appears (to me) to be a deliberate attempt to artificially age the inner surface of the watch, I think it's more likely that if it's a recent production that it was aged chemically.
Best regards,
John |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
John,
A chemical would be hard to trace. They would have to do different tests and know what chemical to test for. The mystery goes on.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Are there 5 sets of initials on the watch? Or are there 7 sets? I found 5 sets. I'm not counting the H 9/3 or TC 9/3. The best photo I have is in the "Ripper Diary Inside Story".
Yours Truly,
Eddie
+ |
Travis Bickle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Hi John
What puzzles me is that the owner of the watch spent a large amount of money to get the tests done. Would he actually take a chance and let this watch be annalized with high tech equipment?
Regards,
Trav the Taxi Driver |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 143
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
Hey Trav the Taxi Driver
"You Talkin Ta Me?" Great Movie. Anyway. here's something for you to think about. I'm from America. When we write a date down, for example June 6th, we would write the Month first,slash, then the day. That so called H 9/3 or TC 9/3 could also be FC 9/3. That would stand for Florence Chandler, and her birthday is September 3rd, which would be 9/3 in America. Do you think Maybrick would write it that way because she was from America? Something to think about.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 4:11 am: |
|
You know, it amazes me that nonsense like this is still doing the rounds. |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 144
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Hi AAD
And I was always considered a no nonesense fellow ! Oh, what the heck.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2425
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Hi AAD,
What do you think the 9/3 refers to?
Whatever it is, it was engraved neatly over the crude Maybrick marks.
I think Doreen Montgomery and Mike Barrett are behind it. After all, Mike first telephoned Doreen on 9/3/92 with news of the diary. So she probably found someone with a gold watch of a suitable age, borrowed it, made the scratches, got a jeweller to engrave 9/3 on top and gave it back - the crafty so-and-so.
What?
It's no worse than some of the modern hoax conspiracy theories I've heard.
Have a cool Yule y'all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Caz,
i think you are right - thats the answer
Jenni
ps yes yes i know universal maybrick thread blah blah - sorry!
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1953
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Jenni writes,
"blah blah"
And therein neatly and completely captures the last ten years of diary posts.
Still nothing real, still nothing new,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 150
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Good Morning, John
Jenni had the right idea by starting a Universal Maybrick Thread. But she gave it the wrong name. I think it should be called "Walking Up The Down Escalator".
Yours Truly and Happy Holiday,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2429
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Don't worry about the 'nothing real, nothing new' taunt, Jenni.
All but one of your readers would acknowledge the very real, ongoing contribution you have been making to the diary threads since Dr. Platt's report, by bringing us the latest information on the testing process.
Granted, science isn't any nearer proving the diary a modern fake. And some of us are sceptical that anything real or new could ever help in that regard.
But others seem convinced that with the right test the diary can be given the last rites. If their modern hoax claims over a decade of diary posts are right, it will take someone like you to make it happen one day - and then the blah blah will stop.
Love,
Caz
X |
Eddie Derrico
Inspector
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 153
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
Hi Caz and Jenni
I'm still in the Diary Camp. I'm reading the old posts by Mr Poster and a few other experts. I agree that it is much harder to prove authenticity than forgery.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1954
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Oh, cool. It's the last word game again. OK, I'll play.
So far, science isn't any nearer to proving anything at all.
But soon, no doubt...
In the meantime, I'm quite sure that Jenni isn't worried about any "taunts," or anything I might have written here either.
And as far as the diary goes, there's still nothing real, and still nothing new.
Your turn, Caroline.
--John |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2072
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Jenni writes....
.....nothin you idiots. Jenni is locked in my basement.
Slim
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Monty,
Whats this Eminem kick you've got going on. are you sending hints to Santa.
You can have my Marshall MAthers Lp if you want it and I kind find it.
I mean that - its yours!!
Ii do hope you are not implying i might be locked in YOUR basement, that would be scary, I might run away if I were to see you in the street shouting - ahhhhhhhhhh!!
Anyway - do you have a basement, lol!
And thats not very festive is it?
Jenn
ps "Will Smith don't gotta cuss in his raps to sell his records"
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Eddie Derrico
Inspector
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 154
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Hey People !!
I'm in the Moon Camp too ! I bet the United States actually Did send some astronauts up there a few times. But how can we prove it? Now if someone wanted to disprove it, they would have to go to Hollywood and find the props.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2074
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Jenn,
Don't think I did that sh*t intentionally, just to diss you.
Yours
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
Monty,
ok then - if you say so.
I sure can take a hint you want mandms greatest hits for xmas dont you. i'll go get it for you if you want lol
Jenn
ps "I go a little bit crazy sometimes,
I get a little bit, out of control with my rhymes"
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
AHHHHH!!!
Ive sabataged my own thread!!
Jenni
"I won’t die, of deception"
|
