|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1432
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 5:52 am: |       |
Guys,
Caught on the BBC news website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4042087.stm
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 6:15 am: | |
about time!!
Jenni
ps just five word rule!! |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Hi Monty and Jenn
Thank you Monty for pointing us to this. Nice to see Paul Begg quoted. Referring to Cornwell as "US detective novelist Patricia Cornwell" makes her sound like a detective rather than a writer of detective fiction, but nice to see the effort she put into her research acknowledged, if debunked at the same time: "But despite the definitive title Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper - Case Closed, she was unable to prove Sickert's guilt and her theory was widely dismissed by leading Ripperologists." 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 882
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Fascinating.
It's Friday, November 26, 2004.
I just wanted the date on record here, amidst this new little burst of publicity concerning the Maybrick hoaxes (despite there being no new information whatsoever).
We can use this marker for two purposes. One, if either the watch or the diary suddenly come up for sale in one form or another (or a new Maybrick book or film deal arrives), we can note the timing. Two, we'll have another way to measure the time between this new announcement of there being nothing really new and the arrival of real "new results" from proper and thorough tests on both items wherein the professionals are granted unlimited access to the materials they are testing.
Dates can be very handy things.
Marking my calendar yet again,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on November 26, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
John
Proper and thorough tests on the Maybrick artefacts?
From Albert Johnson's remarks reported in the Daily Mail, it doesn't sound as though "no-strings" testing of the watch is on his agenda any more:
Albert Johnson feels there is no need to continue investigating the watch, as the scientists have suggested - for him, the new evidence is conclusive.
"We could go on for ever getting the watch tested but it wouldn't make any difference," he says. "People have already made up their minds - and those who don't believe the diary won't believe this either."
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
Thanks Monty for pointing the site out.
I think the BBC did a big "thriller type" series on Maybrick and wife Florence some years back.Maybe as John says there is about to be another "Maybrick and Florrie" show set in Liverpool.The last one was very well done actually-a bit Anne Riceish with lots of shots of a spooky looking house and leafless trees outside in the November mists while Maybrick penned his diary in the creaking old house.Not much about Whitechapel as I recall.
Natalie |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 883
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Yes, unfortunately, the phrase "new evidence" in your quote from the Mail is simply inaccurate. There is no "new evidence," as you know.
And unfortunately, ten years ago the scientists were quite clear about their results being at best "preliminary" and not the consequence of "a full investigation" (which one of them said was impossible given the time and access they were granted).
Ah, well. I wonder what will happen (and not happen) next?
--John |
RachelH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
That's how I came about this website. Very interesting by the way |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Whatho all,
It's Sunday 28th November 2004 8.59 PM GMT.
I thought John might like another time check.
Cheers, Mark |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
Thanks, Mark.
Perhaps we should create a new time-zone exclusively for certain threads on the Casebook.
MHT
Maybrick Hoax Time.
--John
PS: It'd be about 10 years later than GMT, apparently.
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
It'd be about 10 years later than GMT, apparently.
Surely it would be possibly at least several tens of years later. Probably. Or maybe not.
Chris Phillips
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 317
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
John & Chris,
Your byplay brought to mind something I've never seen answered -- does the damn watch work? For that matter, perhaps it runs 10 years slow, accounting for what seems to be a time lag in all matters Maybrick.
Don. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 3:52 am: | |
Hi All,
What I still don't understand is how anyone here can seriously believe that, even with 'unlimited' access to the watch, and as much work on it as humanly and scientifically possible, the at least several tens of years old conclusion about the scratches' age is going to change to at most a few weeks old when initially examined.
That's the conclusion you are going to need (and the only conclusion that will do), if you plan to support your modern hoax claim with more than fresh air and complacency.
Sitting there noting various dates and times may distract the odd reader from the reality of this situation, but it's only a temporary respite from facing up to it in the long run.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 5:07 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
What I still don't understand is how anyone here can seriously believe that, even with 'unlimited' access to the watch, and as much work on it as humanly and scientifically possible, the at least several tens of years old conclusion about the scratches' age is going to change to at most a few weeks old when initially examined.
That's the conclusion you are going to need (and the only conclusion that will do), if you plan to support your modern hoax claim with more than fresh air and complacency.
(1) As no quantitative justification for the "several tens of years" verdict is given, it may well be badly wrong.
(2) Turgoose made no quantitative measurements at all. Wild made some, which may imply something about the age of one of the brass particles in the scratches, but his report was dated about 9 months after the first reports of the Maybrick diary, not "a few weeks".
(3) Clearly, in order to prove the watch a fake, it's not necessary to prove that the scratches were less than a year old. Only that they were less than a century old!
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 886
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Hi all,
Has anyone else noticed that whenever the idea of properly, thoroughly retesting the watch and/or diary in a situation where the scientists are actually given full access to the material they are testing is even mentioned, Caroline Morris shows up and does not endorse this simple and intellectually responsible call for a "full investigation," as one of the scientists put it?
I wonder why that is?
Of course, it seems more apparent every day that such tests will never take place, on either artefact.
I wonder why that is, too?
As for the "reality of this situation" --
Here it is.
1. These tests are more than ten years old and they explicitly announce that they are only preliminary and incomplete and that a "full investigation" was impossible given the limited access the professionals were given to the material being tested.
2. Neither the diary nor the watch has been thoroughly and responsibly retested using the latest technology in many years.
3. Neither of the owners of these artefacts show any signs that they are likely to do the responsible thing and raise the funds, organize the tests, and learn the truth about these items.
And that's how such hoaxes are allowed to continue.
And that's a shame.
--John (11/29/04 at 7:48 minus 10 years, MHT) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Well Caz,
what are you saying you agree with Albert Johnson that no further tests are needed. Only just the other day i thought you implying that the converse was true?
what exactly is your knowledge of the scientific merit of further tests? consulted any scientists? i mean i confess i have not but then again i am not the one making sweeping statements about the merits of further watch tests TEN yrs after the original.
Jenni |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1433
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
Caz,
And what is the reality of the situation?
What will we be facing up to in the long run ?
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
ADD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 4:01 am: | |
As we all know, the conclusion that the scratches were 'tens of years old' is flawed and untenable. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 4:24 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
That's my point - you'd better hope that the conclusions of both Turgoose and Wild are 'badly wrong' - completely wrong in fact - not just 'may well be'.
You need the scratches to have been, at most, just a few weeks old when initially examined, don't you? Anything older than when the first news about the diary broke, and both modern hoax conspiracy theories are in BIG trouble, let me tell you.
But if you are now insisting that 'it's not necessary to prove that the scratches were less than a year old', go ahead. I'll be happy to whisper 'tin match box empty' in your shell-like, to remind you what pre-1993 scratches would mean to your faith in the post-1988 diary theory. 
Hi Jenni,
what are you saying you agree with Albert Johnson that no further tests are needed. Only just the other day i thought you implying that the converse was true?
Where do you get all this from? I'd be delighted if the money for further testing could be guaranteed, along the lines recommended in the reports, and I'm sure I could then get Albert to agree. He may not need any further tests to be convinced, especially if he knows fine well that the scratches must have been there when he bought the watch.
Obviously, if Albert had been hoping or expecting to convince everyone else, with the publication of these reports, he would have to think again. But he is under no such illusions, because he has already made the observation that people will believe what they want to believe, regardless.
I don't think you, or I, have been making 'sweeping statements' about the merits of further watch tests 'TEN yrs after the original'.
But I won't be taking any bets on how John O and Chris P will respond, if the watch is tested again, thoroughly, responsibly, and all that caper, and if the results still don't - or can't - show that the scratches only date back to 1993.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 368
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:05 am: | |
At the risk of getting my head bitten off, those who are disputing the findings of the watch report (specifically the 'tens of years' statement) are those who have been rambling on for years that the diary is a post 1987 forgery.
If the reports said 'several years', would they say "We still need more conclusive tests" or "I told you so".
Until more tests are done It is clear to me at least, that 'Tens of years' means 'Tens of years' and that the watch and so the diary are pre 1973.
Rob
P.S. Caz, Thank you for taking the trouble to type the reports up. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:13 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
As I've pointed out several times - though, unsurprisingly, the message doesn't seem to be getting through in some quarters - the reports present no scientific estimate of the age of the scratches.
As that's the case, this continual speculation on your part about what might happen if the scratches could be proved to be older than 1993 is a complete waste of everyone's time. Obviously it isn't going to happen.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:16 am: | |
Robert
Have you actually read the reports?
If so, what is the evidence that convinces you that the scratches on the watch were made before 1973?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
Hi Rob,
without acting like I just threw all my toys out the pram here, why would tests on the watch prove the diary was written before 1973?
granted they appear to show that the watch was marked before that date.
Hi Caz,
You need the scratches to have been, at most, just a few weeks old when initially examined, don't you? Anything older than when the first news about the diary broke, and both modern hoax conspiracy theories are in BIG trouble, let me tell you.
Let me ask you why? Ok, granted in the case of the watch if it was scratched in 1973, what about that would make it either contemporary (with James and Jack) or authentic?
Just wondering here?
The watch is fake the diary is fake. I was under the impression we all agreed on this? Maybe I was wrong?
I'll be happy to whisper 'tin match box empty' in your shell-like, to remind you what pre-1993 scratches would mean to your faith in the post-1988 diary theory.
once again what has the dairy got to do with these watch reports? go ahead remind me,
Jenni
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:40 am: | |
Jenni
To agree with Mrs Morris for once, there is linkage between the diary and the watch, for the following reason.
Most people believe the diary was faked in the late 1980s. The most definite evidence for this is indeed the phrase "tin match box empty", quoted from a document first published in the 1980s.
If the watch were an old fake, how could that be reconciled with a late 1980s faking of the diary? Not at all easily.
That is why most people have a very strong presumption that the watch is a fake cooked up in the wake of the publicity for the diary in 1993.
That's why most people will require very strong scientific evidence before they are convinced that the scratches on the watch are older than 1993.
I'm amazed that some people seem willing to accept the "guesstimates" of Turgoose and Wild about the age of the scratches - which, incidentally, have been known for more than a decade.
If people read the reports, they will see that they present no scientific estimate of the age of the scratches.
If people read the reports but can't understand the science, I'd suggest they suspend judgment rather than simply swallowing the unsupported conclusions.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 369
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
Hi Jenni
Just my opinion. I don't think you can have one without the other.
Hi Chris
I have read the reports, and to be perfectly honest I am not scientifically minded, I would have prefered a laymans version, but Turgoose said "The markings identified to me as 'am J' and 'Maybrick' are the earliest visible markings" which to me is they were marked there first, and his conclusion "I would be of the opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer." However I did note that Turgoose also said "there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings.".
Personally speaking if there is anyone more qualified than Turgoose or Wild to form an opinion than I would happily listen to it.
I used pre 1973 just on the bases of "several tens" meanning at least 2 decades.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
Sure, i suspend my judgement!!!!
damn the five word rule!!! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
Rob,
fair enough!!
Jenni
also the five word rule |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
Robert
I have read the reports, and to be perfectly honest I am not scientifically minded, I would have prefered a laymans version, but Turgoose said "The markings identified to me as 'am J' and 'Maybrick' are the earliest visible markings" which to me is they were marked there first, and his conclusion "I would be of the opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer." However I did note that Turgoose also said "there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings.".
The problem is that Turgoose's conclusion was based only on observations of the order in which the scratches were made. Obviously the order they were made in tells us nothing about when they were made.
Turgoose's opinion of the age of the scratches isn't a scientific opinion at all. As you say, he specifically admits his observations can't prove the age of the scratches. In fact, in the next sentence, he goes on to say They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multistage process, using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing or artificial wearing stages.
In other ways, Turgoose's observations are entirely consistent with a modern fake. It's just a question of how much trouble we can believe that a faker would have gone to.
I think the problem is that there are too many "non-scientifically-minded" people unquestioningly accepting the unscientific conclusions of these reports.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 370
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:42 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Then why bother mentioning "at least tens of years". My interpretation of Turgoose's conclusions is that he believes the scratches are at least tens of years old but covers his backside by saying they could have been done recently because more conclusive tests need to be made. Thats just my opinion.
And I am going by memory here as I am using someone else's computer at the moment, and need to be quick, but the multistage process to artifically age the watch does seem at odds with the cheap shoddy diary hoax, that it is sometimes claimed to be.
Rob
P.S Just in case anyone is bothered about my opinion, I think the diary and watch are an old hoax made between 1889 and 1906. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
Robert
Then why bother mentioning "at least tens of years". My interpretation of Turgoose's conclusions is that he believes the scratches are at least tens of years old but covers his backside by saying they could have been done recently because more conclusive tests need to be made. Thats just my opinion.
Then what measurement or observation, in your opinion, did Turgoose make, that would allow him to determine the age of the scratches?
Science doesn't work like conjuring, with the magician producing the rabbit out of the hat, and the audience politely applauding! Scientists have to show evidence for their conclusions, if they expect anyone to give them any credence. There is no adequate evidence for the conclusions of the reports.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on November 30, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
the reports present no scientific estimate of the age of the scratches.
With the greatest respect, these are scientific reports, and both Turgoose and Wild do present their estimates of the age of the scratches, however much you dislike what they conclude.
In both cases, they estimate that age to be far greater than the 'few months at most', on which you pin all your faith.
Maybe your faith will serve you well, but that remains to be seen, doesn't it?
Maybe Turgoose was a silly goose to give any estimate at all, and maybe Wild was wildly out in his; but I wouldn't bank on it if I were you.
Rob said what I think a lot of fellow laymen, and certainly this laywoman, are thinking in the here and now:
if there is anyone more qualified than Turgoose or Wild to form an opinion then I would happily listen to it.
I trust you would listen too.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:17 am: | |
Hi Rob,
I meant to add that I can't take any credit for typing up the reports. I simply proof read them and did the necessary formatting, before posting them.
I am hoping that any blunders will be picked up by others who already have their own copies.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 896
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:26 am: | |
First of all, here's a question to keep you all busy for awhile (since you are obviously bored to tears if you are here visiting Diary World, where there hasn't been anything new or real for at least ten years).
Are all estimates made by scientists, by definition, "scientific"?
Secondly, in case anyone has forgotten:
"The amount of time the watch was available for examination was limited to only a few hours and as a result a thorough investigation was not possible and any conclusions are therefore preliminary at this stage."
and
"To give an accurate date to the watch from its surface composition and from the brass particles embedded in the base of the scratches it would be necessary to analyse several standards of known age, encompassing the age of the watch to recent time, of both brass and gold which had been known to have been exposed to similar conditions. This would involve a considerable amount of work."
and
"...it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work."
Just a reminder, as we wait for proper, thorough, responsible testing of both artefacts to take place (or our own deaths, whichever comes first).
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:30 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
I'm afraid the hollowness of your position is becoming more and more blatant.
I've pointed out time and time again that the reports offer no scientific justification for these estimates. I've asked you, time and time again, to show us the scientific justification, if you disagree.
You haven't been able to, and nor has anyone else.
All you can say is they were scientists, so they must be believed, even if they present no justification for their statements.
I'm tempted to ask how you would decide between two scientists who disagreed? Would you be willing even then actually to take account of the evidence they presented for their beliefs? I suppose not - I suppose you'd just have to count which one had more letters after his name!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 11:59 am: | |
'Adam [Wood]is also in discussion with Albert Johnson about a publication on the Maybrick Watch. '
www.laybooks.com
just worth mentioning
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 898
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Jennifer,
Interesting.
Though not entirely unexpected. 
Nice find,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 4:46 am: | |
i don't want to be accused of taking things out of context, so i will say i have just been informed this could may well refer to the Rip,
sorry!
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 6:29 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
Please cite precisely where I have said - or even implied - that Turgoose and Wild, as scientists, must be believed?
I neither accept nor reject their estimates. I don't know if there is any scientific justification for them or not. How could I? I'm not a scientist.
I don't know how well qualified you are to judge, but you are the one claiming to know enough to reject them. And you can hardly claim to be an impartial observer, now can you?
I would not claim to be able to decide between two scientists who disagreed, or two 'experts' of any kind for that matter. That has been one of the most difficult areas of the whole debate, not to mention the ripper case itself. If laymen could decide, and all agree, which expert knew best what they were talking about, we probably wouldn't be here now.
Alec Voller, for instance, expressed his opinion that the diary ink wasn't Diamine, and that the writing was 90+ years old. (Please, no one ask me what 90+ means, or claim that's less than 100, or I think I will scream. )
But of course we've had many other 'expert' opinions that beg to differ on both counts. So how am I supposed to know who's right?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 550
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
I neither accept nor reject their estimates. I don't know if there is any scientific justification for them or not. How could I? I'm not a scientist.
... how am I supposed to know who's right?
Some progress at last!
I'm pleased to hear that I've got the wrong impression from your previous posts, and that you actually have no opinion on whether there is any scientific justification for the estimates of the age of the scratches.
Unless anyone wishes to argue that the conclusions are scientifically justified, I'm very happy to suspend the discussion here.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 76
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Chris
“To agree with Mrs Morris for once, there is linkage between the diary and the watch, for the following reason.
Most people believe the diary was faked in the late 1980s. The most definite evidence for this is indeed the phrase "tin match box empty", quoted from a document first published in the 1980s.
If the watch were an old fake, how could that be reconciled with a late 1980s faking of the diary? Not at all easily.
That is why most people have a very strong presumption that the watch is a fake cooked up in the wake of the publicity for the diary in 1993.
That's why most people will require very strong scientific evidence before they are convinced that the scratches on the watch are older than 1993.”
For starters, who are these “most people” you take it upon yourself to quote repeatedly?
This couldn’t be a presumption on your part could it? Heaven forbid!
When a scientist bases his findings, opinions or whatever on his own experiences, for example the explanation given for the presence of hydrocarbons etc. Is that not a valid scientific opinion?
When the reports show that as a result of scientific tests there is a similarity between the make up of the watch surface both within and without the scratches, is that not an opinion based on scientific evidence?
Of course it is.
Caz is spot on here I’m afraid, and fortunately others too, (who can’t clearly be counted amongst your “most people”), who are seeing that the 1993 diary bandwagon hoax idea on which you seem to have pinned all your hopes, should be dead and buried now as it should have been years ago.
Paul
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Paul
Thanks for actually referring to the observations in the report, rather than just repeating the statements made in the conclusions sections, as other have.
Unfortunately I'm at a loss to see how the two points you've mentioned justify the conclusion that the scratches were made decades (or more) ago:
the explanation given for the presence of hydrocarbons etc
The only mention of hydrocarbons I can find is Wild's statement that:
The watch surface was heavily contaminated with hydrocarbons which were present as a result of prolonged exposure to the environment and handling.
There's not even any mention of the scratches there.
there is a similarity between the make up of the watch surface both within and without the scratches
Here I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.
Turgoose carried out an elemental analysis, which showed similar composition of surface and scratches. On this he commented:
no conclusions can be drawn from these analyses.
Then there is Wild's finding of similar levels of silver enrichment on the surface and in the scratches. On this he commented:
If this enrichment of silver occurs over a long period of time then this result would indicate that the engraving is of an age comparable with that of the watch. However, if this enrichment occurs in a short time scale and then stabilises nothing could be said about the age of the engraving. More work needs to be done to resolve this.
In other words, he lacked the information to interpret this finding.
In the original drfat of his report, he went on to comment accordingly:
This [the alleged polishing of the watch 6-10 years before] would suggest that the silver profile does form in a short period of time and that little can be said about the age of the scratches from this.
In the final draft he revised this to:
This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years.
The logic behind this revision is completely unclear to me. In any case it seems to be based on inaccurate information about when the watch was last polished, not on scientific observation.
Obviously none of this is anywhere near to providing justification for the estimates that the scratches were decades old.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
Hi Jennifer
In regard to the note you saw on Loretta Lay's website, "Adam [Wood] is also in discussion with Albert Johnson about a publication on the Maybrick Watch" I agree with your conclusion that this may concern an upcoming book on the watch, although I have not so far heard directly from Adam about any plans to put out such a book.
I do notice that Loretta put this information under "True Crime." Hmmm, what for, the Ripper murders, or the watch being a True Crime?!!! 
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on December 03, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
Hi Chris
If its published my dear.....It MUST be true 'eh?!
Hmmmmmm
suzi |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
