Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by MrBarnett 19 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 28 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 50 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by drstrange169 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by DJA 9 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by Joshua Rogan 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (20 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (9 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4281  
Old 02-22-2018, 03:07 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
Not according to another expert whose opinion was that the inclusion of the iron particles in the scribings probably from the implement used were impossible to have been introduced and aged at the time of scribing.
Do you really think you have seen the word "impossible" stated by this expert?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
Also given that the scribings were made by more than one implement makes it quite unlikely that it was concocted by a forger.
You are saying that a forger cannot use more than one implement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
I thought that raising the watch on a diary thread may cause problems to some
Well the only problem it causes is that it is off topic in a thread entitled "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary". Mind you, we seem to have stopped discussing that aeons ago when I provided an incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the diary.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4282  
Old 02-22-2018, 11:34 PM
Spider Spider is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Mind you, we seem to have stopped discussing that aeons ago when I provided an incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the diary.
Really? You'll have to jog my memory on that having not been on here for ages.
__________________
‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4283  
Old 02-23-2018, 04:23 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
What gets me is how these inscriptions weren't spotted sooner. Even though they're spidery and comparatively faint, they are nonetheless well-formed words and letters, and clearly not random scratches. Furthermore, the inscriptions are clustered around the hallmarks on the case, and hallmarks are one of the first things people take a really good look at when inspecting antiques. It goes with the territory.
Hi Gareth,

The scratches are virtually invisible to the naked eye and inside the back cover, which Albert may not have had reason to open or inspect until the subject of old watches came up at work the following summer. He bought it as an investment for his granddaughter and said he kept it in a drawer.

When I saw the watch at the Bournemouth conference in 2001, I couldn't make out any words or letters, even when it was held up to the light for me. The jeweller said the scratches were there when it was put on sale but there was no reason to inspect them that closely. Why would Albert have taken the watch back to the shop with his brother Robbie, to show the jeweller the scratches and ask for more information, if either of them thought there was a real risk that he'd say "But these marks were not in the watch when we sold it to you, they must have been made later"?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4284  
Old 02-23-2018, 04:45 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
There's also the coincidence of the watch being put up for sale in Spring 1992, and sold to Albert Johnson in the July, just when the diary publishing deal was being negotiated. Neither Albert nor the jeweller could have been aware of the diary's existence at this time, yet both agreed that the scratches were not made after purchase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
How can you be sure that is actually the case Caz?
What - that the watch went on sale in Spring 1992?

That Albert saw it in the window and finally bought it in the July [with a win on the horses IIRC]?

That the diary publishing deal was being negotiated at that time?

Or that both the jeweller and Albert agreed [or claimed if you prefer] that the scratches were not made after the purchase?

Do you think the jeweller knew about the diary in Spring 1992 and put the markings in the watch himself? Was Albert in on the scam too?

Or what? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I don't personally consider the Maybrick watch to be off topic on any Maybrick diary thread, given the obvious link and the known circumstances. Besides, wouldn't one fact proving the scratches not to be decades old put an end to the idea that the watch could in any way have inspired the diary and not the other way round?

However, if David or anyone else feels strongly enough about booting the watch into touch on this thread, maybe they could take it up with Admin? I think it would be a backward step, as it might make the modern hoax theorists appear a bit insecure about their convictions.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4285  
Old 02-23-2018, 04:47 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Gareth,

The scratches are virtually invisible to the naked eye and inside the back cover, which Albert may not have had reason to open or inspect until the subject of old watches came up at work the following summer. He bought it as an investment for his granddaughter and said he kept it in a drawer.

When I saw the watch at the Bournemouth conference in 2001, I couldn't make out any words or letters, even when it was held up to the light for me. The jeweller said the scratches were there when it was put on sale but there was no reason to inspect them that closely. Why would Albert have taken the watch back to the shop with his brother Robbie, to show the jeweller the scratches and ask for more information, if either of them thought there was a real risk that he'd say "But these marks were not in the watch when we sold it to you, they must have been made later"?

Love,

Caz
X
Hi caz
If you couldn’t make out words or letters than the watch is a non starter no?

Also, how do you get around the phrase-tin match box empty being used in the diary?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4286  
Old 02-23-2018, 04:51 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi caz
If you couldn’t make out words or letters than the watch is a non starter no?
Sorry, Abby, I don't follow you. They were definitely there!

Quote:
Also, how do you get around the phrase-tin match box empty being used in the diary?
I don't 'get around' it, Abby. It's in there and it needs an explanation for how the diarist knew this information.

There is zero evidence that Mike was looking in any of the right ripper sources prior to April 13th 1992, so who knows?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4287  
Old 02-23-2018, 06:46 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
What - that the watch went on sale in Spring 1992?

That Albert saw it in the window and finally bought it in the July [with a win on the horses IIRC]?

That the diary publishing deal was being negotiated at that time?

Or that both the jeweller and Albert agreed [or claimed if you prefer] that the scratches were not made after the purchase?

Do you think the jeweller knew about the diary in Spring 1992 and put the markings in the watch himself? Was Albert in on the scam too?

Or what? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I don't personally consider the Maybrick watch to be off topic on any Maybrick diary thread, given the obvious link and the known circumstances. Besides, wouldn't one fact proving the scratches not to be decades old put an end to the idea that the watch could in any way have inspired the diary and not the other way round?

However, if David or anyone else feels strongly enough about booting the watch into touch on this thread, maybe they could take it up with Admin? I think it would be a backward step, as it might make the modern hoax theorists appear a bit insecure about their convictions.

Love,

Caz
X
I think there is every possibility that the watch markings were part of the scam
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4288  
Old 02-23-2018, 06:53 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Sorry, Abby, I don't follow you. They were definitely there!



I don't 'get around' it, Abby. It's in there and it needs an explanation for how the diarist knew this information.

There is zero evidence that Mike was looking in any of the right ripper sources prior to April 13th 1992, so who knows?

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz

Quote:
When I saw the watch at the Bournemouth conference in 2001, I couldn't make out any words or letters, even when it was held up to the light for me.
Quote:
Sorry, Abby, I don't follow you. They were definitely there!
???
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4289  
Old 02-23-2018, 06:56 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Sorry, Abby, I don't follow you. They were definitely there!



I don't 'get around' it, Abby. It's in there and it needs an explanation for how the diarist knew this information.

There is zero evidence that Mike was looking in any of the right ripper sources prior to April 13th 1992, so who knows?

Love,

Caz
X

Quote:
I don't 'get around' it, Abby. It's in there and it needs an explanation for how the diarist knew this information.
isn't it obvious that a modern hoaxer saw the police report of listed items and screwed up-writing verbatim what was in the report?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4290  
Old 02-23-2018, 12:44 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Well if one can be - and you agree that one must be - then they both can be.
They both can be indeed, but the probability of these two events occuring by chance is considerably smaller than the probability of either one of these two events occuring by chance.

So it may seem plausible on the surface to propose that both events could have occurred by chance alone, but the underlying statistics of that actually happening suggest that it is much more remote a possibility than the prima facie notion of it happening might have you assume or believe.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.