|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 7:19 am: |       |
One note on the progress of the discussion.
I find it very interesting that we have gone from Paul's list of people who saw the scratches "before Albert even laid eyes on the thing, let alone got his hands on it," all the way down to just one.
Apparently, the list is steadily shrinking.
And of course, as we can see above, it's not at all clear just what he saw.
Not much has changed over the years.
Still waiting,
--John
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 8:56 am: | |
Chris,
I'm trying to keep out of the whole watch discussion until everyone has access to the relevant material, but as no one else seems to want to answer your question, I'll pop back in long enough to give it my best shot.
I've seen photographs of the watch up close, it and DOES appear that the "H 9/3" (Whatever that is actually supposed to mean) does cross the tail of the J which is not visible in published photographs. The tail appears to be part of the letter itself.
A few quick observations regarding the scratches:
1) There were only two people who examined the watch prior to Albert's "discovery". Tim Dundas, and Ron Murphy.
2) Ron Murphy saw "scratches", and he cannot identify the ones present as the ones he tried to remove. The report does NOT, in fact state that there are NO scratches under the "Jack" scratches. Not every scratch was examined in detail. Also, it's entirely possible that Ron was largely successful in his removal attempt.
3) Tim Dundas says the "Jack" scratches WEREN'T there. He did see a repair mark. There is a repair mark on the inner rim which doesn't intersect with any of the Jack scratches. Those trying to claim that the repair marks MUST be the H 9/3, which post dates the scratches Tim says WEREN'T there are using are really picking and choosing their testimony in a rather biased way, not to mention abandoning logic entirely.
4) So we still have no one who can testify to their existence prior to Albert's "discovery".
Another interesting point is that Wild bases his opinion on 2 main points. The blacked particles of brass, and the "silver enrichment" issue where he found a slight discrepancy in silver content between the base of the scratches, and the surface. He also states he doesn't know what the rate of silver enrichment is, or if it happens in a short period of time and then stabilizes. Turgoose also performed an analysis between the surface and the base of the scratches and found no differences in the content.
Could the scratches be old? Sure. Could they be recent? You betcha. At this point we have some non-compelling scientific evidence that they might be old, but no one who can back up their existence prior to Albert finding them. We also have testimony that they were not there. We do have Ronald Murphy's testimony that there were "scratches", but he never appears to have described them as writing.
The publishing of the reports should make for some interesting discussions, but I don't think they're going to settle anything.
I'm outta here.
Best Regards,
John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 12:05 pm: | |
John
Thank you for that information.
I wouldn't want to drag you back into the discussion against your will, but as far as I can judge the question I was asking about the tail and the stem of the "J" isn't actually addressed in the scientific reports.
What I'd really like to know is what the relationship is between the stem of the "J" and the slash of "H 9/3"; in particular, does the stem pass to one side or the other of the slash, and join onto the tail at the bottom? Unless that's the case, I'm not clear how we can be sure that the "tail" really is the a tail.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Hi Chris, John H,
Chris, you said it again - you think it's pointless discussing what's in the reports with anyone, so I will respect your opinion and not discuss it with you.
I can't help but wonder exactly who you think could have hoaxed the ripper marks in 1993, if not one or both Johnson brothers, but no matter.
John H, I can't imagine why Turgoose would have totally failed to pass comment on any scratches made before 'I am Jack', if they could be observed using his high-tech equipment. Neither does it seem very plausible to me that Ron Murphy's attempt to polish out scratches in 1992 could have rendered them totally invisible to Turgoose, using said equipment.
But I suppose anything is possible, from Ron Murphy being mistaken after all about seeing some scratches, to him making said scratches vanish, yet be left with the impression that they were still there despite his rouge job.
If Dundas saw just one mark, the one on the rim, then how do we know he even looked at the surface in question when servicing the watch? On the other hand, doesn't he actually state that he noticed only repair markings - in the plural? If so, might it not be a wee bit misleading to suggest Dundas only claimed to see 'a' repair mark - singular? If he also believed the watch to be a lady's watch, he either remembered the wrong one or didn't realise it is a gentleman's dress pocket watch, and too large to have been made for a lady.
The fact remains that modern hoax believers will eventually be called upon to give reasons why H 9 3 and 1275 would have been engraved over ripper marks hoaxed in 1993.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Actually, that fact does not "remain" until it is firmly and clearly established, scientifically, that anything is indeed engraved over ripper marks for sure.
And -- despite lots of talk about overwhelming evidence and promises of breakthrough clarity and all the rest -- as John's post demonstrates so clearly, that hasn't happened.
And so we are...
Still waiting,
--John
PS: In the meantime, should we recompile a list of all the things those who would claim that authenticity is possible are still in need of explaining? Nah, it's been done and such a list does indeed "remain." |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Caz
I've no objection at all to your refusing to discuss it (or anything) with me, but please don't be surprised if I remind people of the fact from time to time.
I don't want to get drawn into the perennial games-playing, but as you're making such a big thing of my supposed inconsistency, and your supposed "respect" for my opinion (!), I will just point out that what I'm asking about - the relationship of the "tail of the J", the "stem of the J", and the (possible) stroke of the "H 9/3" - isn't actually discussed in the reports. At least, I presume it isn't, judging by one of your previous replies. It can't be very clearly treated there, anyway, as you are still referring to "H 9 3", and John Hacker, who has also seen the reports, is still referring to "H 9/3".
And as the other John points out, we still have rather a lot of supposition being treated as fact. The gender of the watch, for example. As I pointed out the last time you asserted it was gent's watch in order to discredit Dundas, this is a question over which expert opinion has been divided...
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I'm sorry, but 'refusing' is way too strong a word to use, and downright misleading, since you have repeatedly told me that it's pointless discussing the watch evidence further when you haven't seen it all for yourself yet.
Have you forgotten already all your comments (which I agreed with) about possible mistakes and misinterpretations on my part, which would render any related discussions meaningless and unproductive for you?
I haven't.
And why do you always think the very worst of me? I, and Paul Butler, both provided factual information about the gender of the watch (its size being one of the more obvious and telling factors) for the readers because there was - and apparently still is! - a serious misunderstanding about its features and type.
You choose to interpret my motive for giving this information (easily obtainable from reference books about Victorian watches) as a way 'to discredit' Dundas - charming, I must say!
And you wonder why I agree that it would be preferable to wait until the reports (confirming the size of the gents' watch, for starters) are published before I try to answer any more of your questions - only to be slapped again for my pains??
Have a good weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
Caz
Well, I won't reply further at present, but please just read the second para of my last message again.
Actually, I will just say it one more time, in even simpler terms. I agree it's better to wait until the reports are published before discussing the scientific evidence. But what I'm asking about (as far as I know) isn't discussed in the reports.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 8:19 am: | |
Two things should be mentioned here.
First, it is clear that more than just two people have already read the reports in questions.
Second, it is also clear that the conclusions drawn by some who have are significantly different than the conclusions drawn by Paul and Caz and promised by Paul to be overwhelmingly clear and obvious.
And, I would also note that the questions that Chris has been asking over and over again concerning the slash and/or tail mark, questions that are not covered specifically in the reports as I understand it, have received precisely the same response(s) that his questions concerning the tin matchbox line received -- more non-answers and more reasons why no answers are being given.
I sense a pattern here.
And so, as the discussion proceeds, it should be noted by readers precisely what has and hasn't happened. What has happened -- more assertions, more claims, more interpretations based largely on desire and more promises of definitive ("overwhelmingly clear") answers that remain unfulfilled. What hasn't happened -- the production of objective, breakthrough new evidence, any change in the status quo, the settling of any issue whatsoever, and of course, the offering of any reason at all to consider the diary anything but a forgery.
And, in case readers have forgotten, or haven't noticed here, we still don't know who saw what scratches when.
And that's your morning update from Diaryworld. As Officer Barbrady is so fond of saying, "Nothing to see here, people, move along..."
--John
PS: Chris, thanks for the mention.
(Message edited by omlor on April 30, 2004) |
chris toomey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
i seem to recall Mike Barrett's wife having something to do with the diary's origin, and then passed it on to Mike via his friend. sorry if this is covered elsewhere, can anyone clear this up? i understood that she is/was a writer prior to the diary's 'discovery'. Does anyone else think she may be involved with the diary's creation? |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
And why do you always think the very worst of me? I, and Paul Butler, both provided factual information about the gender of the watch (its size being one of the more obvious and telling factors) for the readers because there was - and apparently still is! - a serious misunderstanding about its features and type.
Perhaps it's worth repeating that it was not only Dundas, but also Stanley Dangar (described by Shirley Harrison as a "watch expert" who produced a "very detailed and useful professional description" of the watch), Melvin Harris and a number of others referred to earlier in this thread, who expressed the opinion that this was a lady's watch.
In a sense, I'm being too indulgent to Caz by saying that expert opinion is divided, as I don't think she would claim to be an expert on watches. At any rate, it's clearly wrong of Caz to imply that the question has been settled by her and Paul, and that they have proved the experts wrong.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
Indeed, Chris.
One other obvious point I would list among things that should be noted:
Nothing has been settled by Caz and Paul.
Other Chris,
The provenance stories are as incomplete as they have been contradictory. You can find most of them discussed at one time or another on these boards. They're a hoot. Of course, the diary has no established provenance to speak of prior to the moment Mike carries it into an office.
And there was once talk of Mike wanting to be a writer and Anne has since become one, sort of.
I haven't asked recently, but I suspect that the answer to your last question is yes, there are still some people who might think Anne played a role in the production and/or distribution of this thing. But of course, that has not been in any way established.
One thing is clear though. There are lots of versions of how this book got to Mike's hands and no evidence at all anywhere that it was ever in the hands of the real James Maybrick.
Conclude from that what you will.
All the best,
-John
(Message edited by omlor on April 30, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Hi All,
The all-seeing, all-knowing have spoken.
They know what evidence isn't contained in the watch reports, despite not having read them.
The conclusion drawn by just one person (not some) who has read both reports (ie John Hacker) is that the watch scratches could be old, but also could have been put there in 1993. I don't know of any other layman who has read the full reports and thinks the evidence points anywhere but away from a 1993 hoax.
Yet one or two here who haven't yet had the opportunity to read the reports appear to be surer than I am about what they may or may not contain.
Similarly, the all-seeing and all-knowing claim to know what evidence doesn't exist anywhere for the diary and watch ever being in the hands of the real James Maybrick.
But how they would howl at me if I dared to claim that there is no evidence anywhere, that Anne or Mike or Tony or Gerard or Billy or Albert or Robbie helped create two modern hoaxes.
So, as usual, I'll try not to make any claims unless I know something for sure.
The Maybrick watch is a gentleman's watch. It is 45mm in diameter and it's a dead ringer for page after page after page of photos and descriptions of similar-sized gentlemen's dress pocket watches in just one of the reference books written by experts on English Victorian watches (published in 1993, coincidentally) that I have in my great grandad's bookcase downstairs.
We don't have to be experts on everything when there are books galore written by the experts to guide us. But you will need the desire to see and to know, in order to refer to your first book and face the facts you find there.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Hi all,
Well, I'm not sure who the "they" are in the sentence, "They know what evidence isn't contained in the watch reports, despite not having read them," but Chris has repeatedly asked about whether the specific info concerning the slash and/or tail is or isn't in the reports and has, of course, repeatedly not been given a straight answer.
As for me, my point was clear. I most certainly have not read the reports (they remain unpublished, so far). But I have read the words of those who have and there can certainly be no doubt what those words demonstrate; that the reports are open to contradictory interpretations and that nothing at all has been settled here, even among those who have read them.
As for there being no evidence anywhere that links in any way the watch or the diary to the real James Maybrick, that's an easy claim to make, since it's been ten years now and no one has ever produced any -- not here on these boards, not in print, and not in public. So, unless someone can prove me wrong, unless someone can offer even one single piece of real evidence that links in any way either this book or this watch to the real James, all the umbrage is merely show, a rhetorical maneuver which might express strong desires but finally does nothing to challenge my conclusion that such evidence does not exist.
And promises of forthcoming evidence will not work (just as it hasn't worked for years). Either it's available or it's not. If it's not (and believe me, it's not), then what I wrote still stands as true.
As for the gender of the watch -- Chris has cited experts, Caz has cited books she's read. I think the readers should decide whether that argument has in fact been settled or not.
I maintain nothing has been settled. But I also maintain that no one has yet offered any serious reason to believe that the diary is anything but a fake.
I maintain that all of the provenance stories remain completely unevidenced. (Because it had such a lovely touch of Poe, my favorite was the Feldmaniacal "it was buried under the floorboards at Battlecrease until workmen discovered it" one, later abandoned in favor of the vague "it's really been in Anne's family for generations" one, which demands that we simply believe Anne and that we also believe that she let her then husband walk into a potential publishing situation with a book she failed to tell him came from her and that she did so while allowing him to believe that he got it from a friend at a pub to whom she surreptitiously snuck it and that she played out the melodrama in front of her daughter with the alleged unwrapping scene -- yeah, that one's good, too. I only wonder why no one here has also offered the "Albert's related to the Maybricks, you can tell by looking at his face" argument. That one's way cool.)
And I maintain that the handwriting, and the diary's ahistoricity, and the matchbox line, and the Crashaw quote, and the close-call scene, and all the rest are all solid evidence of forgery and that on the other side of the scale there is nothing but hope, desire, and dreams.
I am quite comfortable making all of those claims without having to be either all-knowing or all-seeing.
But I am, of course, still waiting,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on May 01, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
Caz
If you'll please just read my statements carefully, you'll see they were always qualified, as far as I can judge, or similarly.
My judgment was based largely on your own statement:
Turgoose seems very clear about which scratches form the J of Jack. If he had not been sure where superficial scratches ended and letters and numbers began, I would hope he would have said so ... I did wonder if Turgoose put H 9/3 because he saw it like that under magnification, in addition to the downward stroke of the J, or whether he may have chosen a forward slash to indicate separate numbers rather than using a single space, since it looks more like H nine three in my clearest photo, rather than H ninety-three, or H 9/3.
[my emphasis]
I think it was reasonable to conclude from that that there was no detailed discussion by Turgoose of the slash and its relation to the tail of the "J".
Are you now saying the reports do contain such a discussion, or is your post just more diversionary games-playing?
As for your confidence that you are right in dismissing the views of the expert Stanley Dangars about the gender of the watch, because the watch looks like pictures of men's watches in a book you have, and that book was also written by an expert - I think everyone's in a position to judge how safe that kind of reasoning is. I suspect there are few people who would feel happy applying that kind of strategy to the diagnosis of medical conditions, for example!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on May 01, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Find me just one book written by an authority on Victorian watches that contradicts all the books I have seen, or else prove that Stanley Dangar had more expertise than all the writers of those books, and I may change my mind and consider my verdict unsafe after all.
And then we would only be back to doubts about gender, which wouldn't tell us a thing about the age of the scratches.
You've obviously already got my take on what Turgoose wrote about the J and the H9/3, or H 9 3. If, when you finally see the reports, you are not satisfied with my take, you can take it up with me again. If, however, you find you are not satisfied with Turgoose's take, or his findings, you would have to take it up with him.
Patience is a virtue, I'm told. 
I'm off to the Pub now, so I'll leave you two alone to discuss what you haven't seen yet and to agree with each other about it all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Caz
You've obviously already got my take on what Turgoose wrote about the J and the H9/3, or H 9 3. If, when you finally see the reports, you are not satisfied with my take, you can take it up with me again. If, however, you find you are not satisfied with Turgoose's take, or his findings, you would have to take it up with him.
I have some difficulty believing your confusion about this is genuine, after all the efforts I've made to explain.
I've said at least four or five times now that I'm asking about this question because (as far as I can judge!) it's not discussed in the reports.
The only reasons I quoted your musings on Turgoose was to explain why I believed it wasn't discussed in the reports.
So, as you'll be able to see - if you pause calmly and think about it for a moment - my waiting for the reports is not likely to enlighten me about this question, is it?
Anyway, I'm going to give up on this for the time being. I think such discussion as we've managed to have has reinforced the essential point - you can apparently see only one downward stroke, and Turgoose simply speaks of "H 9/3", with no discussion of the relationship to the "J". In the absence of any contrary evidence, it seems reasonable to assume the downward stroke is Turgoose's slash, not the stem of the "J".
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Chris,
I've put together a small drawing showing the relationship between the J, the H 9/3, and the 1275. It appears that both the the H9/3 and 1275 cross the J. However we have no idea what they are, when they were put there, or any evidence whatsoever to suggest they were not put there by whoever made the Jack marks.
As I recall, at one point we were told with "complete certainty" that the 1275 was a Casemaker's mark. In addition David Thompson, superindendent of the watch and clock department of the British Museum, said that the 20789 to be certainly a repair mark, but "Mr Thompson was puzzled about the numbers H 9/3 and 1275 which he thought could have been produced by the implement that made the other scratches... although it could have been a repair number." So it they're repair marks, they're not of a common format.
There was certainly plenty of free real estate that those alleged repair marks could have in, and yet they cross the J for no apparent reason.
I've tried to make the lines that are usually visible a little darker to indicate how the J is actually constructed vs. how it looks in most photos. It's freehand, and I have no talent, so it's not an exact representation by any means.
\ image{WatchJ}
I hope this helps. Now I'm back to taking care of my sick cat.
Cheers all,
John
(Message edited by jhacker on May 01, 2004)
(Message edited by jhacker on May 01, 2004)
(Message edited by jhacker on May 01, 2004) |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hmmm... No image...@#$@%.
Let's try again.
 |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
John
Many thanks for that.
So judging from your drawing, would I be right in thinking that the slash of "H 9/3" actually coincides with (or continues) the stem of the "J"?
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 1:35 am: | |
Caz,Paul,
I am sorry I have not answered your questions.For the past four days,because of eye trouble.I have not been able to access my computor.I am only checking messages today.
However I notice other posters have answered in an inteligent and persuasive manner.
When I resume,I believe I will be able to adeqately explain that the diary does indicate where the initials would be found,and that the diary and watch are part of the same hoax.
Notice also that I have been indicatiing initials.I am aware that scratches were noticed,but not in the form of initials.Albert Johnson is the first person to mention initials.
H.M. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Hi John H,
I do hope your cat is better very soon. Mine is sitting here on my lap as I type this, and he sends purrs and hugs to yours.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Chris, what 'slash'? How do you know Turgoose wasn't using a slash in his report to show a natural separation between the 9 and the 3? See what I meant now about it not looking like the number 93? His magnification would have been far superior to anything we could see in the very best photos, yet he was confident that the H 9 3 and 1275 were engraved with different tools and - crucially - after the 'I am Jack' was crudely scratched into the surface. Caz is but one of the messengers - so shoot her. She has come to expect nothing less of her virtual modern hoax adherents.  |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 6:15 pm: | |
Caz
Unless he says he's using it in that sense, it seems to me it would be a most unlikely thing to do. Why would he not just use "H9 3" or "H 9 3"? I assume his report was typed or printed, rather than handwritten, so there would be no more danger of "9 3" being misread as "93" than there is on this web page.
Does he say he's using the slash in that way? Do you know of an example of anyone using a slash in that way?
If not, I think it's rather misleading to refer to it as "H 9 3", if he says "H 9/3".
Roll on the publication of the reports!
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 6:59 pm: | |
Hi all,
Let's do some reading.
Caz writes:
"Find me just one book written by an authority on Victorian watches that contradicts all the books I have seen, or else prove that Stanley Dangar had more expertise than all the writers of those books, and I may change my mind and consider my verdict unsafe after all.
And then we would only be back to doubts about gender, which wouldn't tell us a thing about the age of the scratches."
I hope everyone sees the rhetorical slippage here. Whether Caz "changes her mind" or not is irrelevant. We are still "back to doubts about gender" either way. In fact, we never left the realm of doubts about gender. Caz cited experts in books she's read. Chris cited an expert commenting on this specific watch who had contrary opinions to the ones Caz cited. Thus, we have doubts about gender. And it doesn't matter whether Caz changes her mind or not, the doubts are clearly still there for readers of this board, since the citations are directly in conflict.
Let's read some more.
Caz writes to Chris,
"You've obviously already got my take on what Turgoose wrote about the J and the H9/3, or H 9 3. If, when you finally see the reports, you are not satisfied with my take, you can take it up with me again."
But of course, Chris was not asking Caz for any such thing. He was asking about something not in the Turgoose report, apparently. The problem is, we can't really tell if it is or is not in the report since Caz won't say. And so she offers this paragraph, which once again (for at least the third time) does not address Chris's specific question. If this reminds anyone of the tin match box question, rest assured you are not alone.
Then John Hacker tell us, speaking of the marks in question:
"However we have no idea what they are, when they were put there, or any evidence whatsoever to suggest they were not put there by whoever made the Jack marks."
Now I know John has read the reports, so I am assuming that nowhere in the reports is it scientifically established in anything like an objective or final or "overwhelming" way what exactly those marks are or what their relationship is to the other scratches either in terms of date or author. If this conclusion was offered beyond a doubt in the reports, I suspect John would not have written what he did. John will, I'm sure, correct me if I'm wrong about this.
And then Caz asks:
How do you know Turgoose wasn't using a slash in his report to show a natural separation between the 9 and the 3?
And see where we are? Back to individual interpretation, back to speculating on intention and meaning. Back to making claims and conclusions beyond anything that is being explicitly cited using the language of the text here. We are, in short, back into the realm of reading, with all its accompanying desire, and Caz is clearly not simply being the "messenger," she is engaged in interpretation, in asking questions about intent and meaning (and she would only have to ask them, of course, if the answers were not readily apparent in the text, otherwise she could just cite the passage and be done with it, having proven her claim).
So it's clearly not the messenger that is being shot here -- it's simply the act of creating rather than just reporting the message that is being examined.
Also, finally, if you're like me, having looked at John's picture and read Caz and Chris and Paul and John on all of this, you are, at the very least, not yet overwhelmed. You see, at the very least, that nothing is settled here, that no breakthrough and inescapable conclusions are suddenly being offered scientifically which allow us to conclude that a modern hoax is simply impossible. You see, at the very least, that individual interpretive desire is still rampant and that, amidst all of this, there is still no evidence anywhere that the real James Maybrick had anything at all to do with either this book or this watch. And you will have also noticed that since I said that the first time, a few posts back, no one has come forward to offer any. They won't. "Watch" and see.
Meanwhile, this board is starting to look more and more like the Barnett board, with the same people saying the same sorts of things over and over but with no real change in the status quo in any meaningful way. But there's an important difference, because unlike the Barnett board, where the person in question was actually related in some real, historical way to the crimes, this is a board about a guy who so far has no link at all to anything to do with the crimes, it's a board about a fiction, and more disturbingly, a board about a lie. Of course, discussing the hoax is worthwhile, and a fun way to pass the idle summer months. But the real James Maybrick has never once been linked to the Ripper case in any real way and we should not forget that.
And of course, he hasn't been linked to this book or this watch, either. But again, for the umpteenth time, we are told "patience is a virtue."
It's been ten years.
No new tests are currently being done on either artefact as far as I know.
Everything is already out there and we're reduced to rehashing reports that have been around for a decade.
How much patience is it reasonable to expect before one comes to the logical conclusion that the evidence doesn't exist, and that the evidence that does exist, the handwriting, the bad history, the matchbox line and Crashaw quote, the lack of provenance, the timing of everything, even the character and reliability of the primary people involved in the "discovery" of the diary, all of it points us away from the real James, away from authenticity, and strongly towards the obvious -- both of these artefacts are fake?
How much patience do we really need, after all?
Is there anything at the end of this newly promised rainbow, or will it too turn out just like all the others, only yet another person's story about what something might mean (Feldman and Harrison were built on such things, of course, and the storytelling continues ten years later).
I have no problem waiting. I have no problem being patient. But I think by now we have every right, after ten years with no real evidence whatsoever, anywhere, ever, to be at least a little pessimistic as we wait.
Are we in fact still going to be here, without any real evidence, on that significant day in July?
Let's see what happens.
Without great expectations,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on May 01, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 8:42 am: | |
Hi Chris,
If you or anyone else needs to believe that: the watch is actually a lady's watch; there is a slash between the neatly engraved 9 and 3 that Turgoose saw but mistook for part of the crudely scratched J; none of the scratches, marks and engravings examined by Turgoose were there when the watch was sold in July 1992; and every time Caz offers any information or makes an observation you can safely dismiss it as incorrect, biased or unreliable - I'll just have to leave you to it, won't I?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Caz
Just one more attempt to explain, in case you're genuinely confused (which frankly I find difficult to credit, after so many previous explanations).
I don't "believe ..." any of those things (still less "need to believe ..." them).
What I am doing is questioning your assertions, that it's a man's watch, that when Turgoose refers to "H 9/3" he must mean "H 9 3", and that it's "increasingly clear" that the scratches are old.
Whether you "believe" those things, "need to believe" them or what, I wouldn't presume to say. I argue only that they are very unsafe assertions, on the evidence we've seen so far.
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 2:58 am: | |
I will have to be quick with this post.I said I would indicate how the diary refers to the watch.
An initial here ,an initial there.I give them a clue.It is under their nose but they do'nt see it.
The diary is directing this at the police.Now why should the police recognise the clue,and what is it a clue to.It's a clue to a watch.Why should they recognise this.Simple.It is what the police were.In those days they were referred to as the watch.The day watch,the night watch.Watch not only referred to their time of duty,but referred also to the personnel performing duty at that time.
Watch was a common description.The navy used it,the army used it.There were watchmen in industry.And the police used it.
So the initials are in a watch,and as the diary predates the watch in order of presentation,the diary writer knows of the watch.They both belong to the same hoax.
How do you forge markings in an otherwise genuine watch.Simple again.You have a duplicate back cover made.
If you think this cannot be done in a manner that would fool experts,think again.There was not much to copy of the inside.A couple of inspection or repair marks.Underneath these the initials,placed first so that they would show under the other markings.Plus of course the ageing.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Nice try at explaining. I understand what you mean. And I don't for a minute believe that anyone is indeed going to just "leave us to it," so I'm sure there will be more opportunities to see if you can get your point across finally.
I do hope that readers notice here who it is that is arguing in favor of these reports not being finally definitive, the issues not being settled, the evidence not in fact being overwhelming or even significantly different than it has been for ten years, for the scientific assertions still being in doubt, on the one hand, and who it is that is arguing for conclusions, for promised new and clear and overwhelming and definitive evidence on the other. That way, when and if the texts are ever made widely available, we can measure whose account of the consequences of the release of these documents proves to be more accurate.
In the meantime, still no one ever offers any real evidence against the real James Maybrick, of course. Nor do they even attempt anymore to link him in any way whatsoever to either the book or the watch, so it seems that this is not even up for discussion -- no one here is willing to defend with real evidence the idea that these things ever had anything to do with the real James, that they are in fact anything other than forgeries.
I recognize, of course, that I have apparently replaced YAWEH in certain circles as "he who must not be named." That's fine. I'm happy speaking to those who are reading along here, who are attempting to follow the rhetorical maneuvers and trace the desires and separate what has from what has not been legitimately established and what conclusions concerning authenticity the evidence truly does favor.
I would also call the readers' attention once again to still another post from Caz to Chris wherein Caz does not answer Chris's simple and direct question about whether the information regarding the tail and/or slash is or is not in Turgoose's report. I think that's four times now, and counting.
And no one has cited even a word of any document that contradicts John Hacker's interpretation concerning what is and what is not actually concluded within the language of the reports themselves.
But we're still told to be patient. Ten years and no evidence and now we're discussing old reports again and still being told to be patient.
So I'm going to try a little experiment. Starting tomorrow morning, I'll only read here, not write a word, for three days, just for fun, to see if anything at all new is said by anyone during that time. To see if any new information is offered at all. To see if the discussion is really anything more than just the last lonely place where hope is being kept alive rhetorically in the absence of any evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, of anything. Then, say on Wednesday night, we'll take the measure of the progress here. We'll see if the rhetoric of desire has given way to genuine offers of proof, if hope has given way to actual evidence, or if we're still watching the same old circle dance.
We have here two fake artefacts. My guess is that we will spend yet another summer chatting about them with no new information, no new results of any sort, no new real evidence; just more and more creative interpretations and stories designed to keep the dream alive.
When I go to sleep tonight, I will be gone. When I return, I expect to find the house exactly as I left it.
And I also expect that I, like everyone around here, will be...
Still waiting,
--John
PS: If anyone does wish to address anything specific I have written, feel free, but after tonight you'll have to wait until Wednesday evening for a response.
(Message edited by omlor on May 02, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 8:38 am: | |
Hi Chris,
You could, if you wanted to, try to ascertain for yourself what kind of watch it is - rather than simply take my word, or anyone else's, for it. I rarely take anyone's unsupported word for anything, so I do understand. This is why I reached for hubby's various reference books on the subject as soon as it appeared to become quite an issue here.
I rarely use the word 'must' either, so I apologise if I really did assert that Turgoose must mean 'H 9 3', not 'H/93'. I have no idea whether he saw and examined an actual slash, or why, if he did, he obviously (from what I've reported previously) didn't think it might be a problem for his observation that the 9 crosses the J, and that 'I am Jack' and 'J Maybrick' are the earliest visible markings.
Obviously any assertions I might have made regarding the reports can be judged unsafe by anyone who hasn't yet read them. And even John Hacker, who has read them, would agree with you that it is unsafe to conclude that the scratches are old. But I don't think I've concluded anything yet, have I? I am more than happy to leave conclusions to the public, as and when they read the evidence for themselves.
I don't need to believe anything, by the way. If the scratches could be shown to have started life in someone's brain almost ten years ago to the day, that would be absolutely fine by me. I'll take my hat off to the person who is able to demonstrate it and to the hoaxer himself. And it would make a wonderful final final chapter for whoever gets to write the book!
Hi Harry,
That's a very intriguing new take on the diary and watch evidence - many thanks for injecting a bit of original thinking!
Hi John,
When you return, could you do me a huge favour and give me and any other readers one brief, concise straight answer to this straight question.
If the state of the diary and watch evidence has remained the same for very nearly a whole decade, and if my treatment of that evidence, style of argument, making observations and so on, and my attitude towards arguments made by others have all also remained at least reasonably static, since we both started posting here, then what suddenly changed to make you treat Caz's every word on the subject with such ill-disguised contempt?
You used to write about my posts in glowing terms, praising me to the hilt for my 'signature' ie my basic, healthy and consistent attitude towards the evidence, and my refusal to go any further than I truly believe the evidence takes me, in any one direction. I am as passionate as ever about sticking to the documented facts, thinking for myself, and not allowing anyone of any persuasion influence that thinking. You used to express admiration for such qualities.
Assuming the dramatic change is not of a personal nature (that would necessitate an emailed response, or no response at all) you will have no trouble explaining it for me and the remaining readers in the simplest of terms so I get a sporting chance of knowing exactly where the problem lies so I can try to address it and improve my act.
Thank you in anticipation for your time.
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page