Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

[Sam Flynn]

And still nowt about the 'seven victims' versus the 'five initials'.

Independent opportunist hoaxers who plumped for different numbers? That the watch only gives those five is probably due to their "canonicity" as evidenced by recent popular books (e.g. Rumbelow, Fido) and media articles.

[Graham]

Independent opportunist hoaxers who plumped for different numbers? That the watch only gives those five is probably due to their "canonicity" as evidenced by recent popular books (e.g. Rumbelow, Fido) and media articles.

That's exactly the point I'm making, Sam. I've done very little Ripper reading over the past few years, so I'm a bit rusty, but am I correct in saying that earlier Ripper authors such as Dan Farson considered Martha Tabram, for example, a Ripper victim? Perhaps the first Ripper victim?

And if dear old Jim was boasting in the Diary about bumping off a couple of unfortunate ladies in Manchester, where were their initials on the Watch?

The thot plickens.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

am I correct in saying that earlier Ripper authors such as Dan Farson considered Martha Tabram, for example, a Ripper victim? Perhaps the first Ripper victim?

I'll have to check Farson when I get home, Graham, but I would suggest that neither his book, nor those of others like Cullen and Odell, achieved the outreach of Rumbelow, Fido and - especially - Knight, to say nothing of Michael Caine, in which works the "canonical five" victims were firmly established, and none of which pre-dated the mid-1970s.

[Graham]

I'll have to check Farson when I get home, Graham, but I would suggest that neither his book, nor those of others like Cullen and Odell, achieved the outreach of Rumbelow, Fido and - especially - Knight, to say nothing of Michael Caine, in which works the "canonical five" victims were firmly established, and none of which pre-dated the mid-1970s.

Thanks Sam. Farson's was the first Ripper book I ever read. I've still probably got a copy, as well as at least some of the others, but if so they'll be up in the loft in a big box by order of wife. Also read Knight's book, well-written admittedly, but did he ever fall for it!

Graham

[Abby Normal]

That's exactly the point I'm making, Sam. I've done very little Ripper reading over the past few years, so I'm a bit rusty, but am I correct in saying that earlier Ripper authors such as Dan Farson considered Martha Tabram, for example, a Ripper victim? Perhaps the first Ripper victim?

And if dear old Jim was boasting in the Diary about bumping off a couple of unfortunate ladies in Manchester, where were their initials on the Watch?

The thot plickens.

Graham

sounds like the watch forgers didn't read the diary forgers close enough.

[Sam Flynn]

sounds like the watch forgers didn't read the diary forgers close enough.

The diary had not yet been published.

[Graham]

sounds like the watch forgers didn't read the diary forgers close enough.

Highly likely! But I'd guess that neither the Diary nor the Watch hoaxers had read any up-to-date book (at that time) on Jack The Ripper.

Graham

[Abby Normal]

The diary had not yet been published.

either way if Maybrick diary writer had said in the diary he killed two other prostitutes in Manchester(as graham said) why aren't there initials on the watch?

[Graham]

My 'highly likely' was meant to be just a teensy weensy little bit sarcastic....
.....but not to worry!

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

either way if Maybrick diary writer had said in the diary he killed two other prostitutes in Manchester(as graham said) why aren't there initials on the watch?

If the diary hadn't been published, how could the watch hoaxer know there were two extra victims? The very fact that the diary and watch don't corroborate each other on this particular point is a strong indicator that they were created by independent hoaxers.

BTW, the diary doesn't name the victims (canonical or otherwise) anyway. If the watch-hoaxer had known the contents of the diary, he might as well have made up the extra initials; that he didn't is also consistent with his being independent of whoever faked the diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your senses are letting you down I'm afraid.

If a scientist, in that particular field, can’t dismiss it on scientific grounds it’s difficult to understand how non-scientific experts in the field can say that they’ve disproved it.

Surely you will accept that some opinions on certain subjects carry more weight than others?

[Abby Normal]

If the diary hadn't been published, how could the watch hoaxer know there were two extra victims? The very fact that the diary and watch don't corroborate each other on this particular point is a strong indicator that they were created by independent hoaxers.

BTW, the diary doesn't name the victims (canonical or otherwise) anyway. If the watch-hoaxer had known the contents of the diary, he might as well have made up the extra initials; that he didn't is also consistent with his being independent of whoever faked the diary.

bingo. different hoaxers and obviously not maybrick.

[Abby Normal]

If a scientist, in that particular field, can’t dismiss it on scientific grounds it’s difficult to understand how non-scientific experts in the field can say that they’ve disproved it.

Surely you will accept that some opinions on certain subjects carry more weight than others?

depending on who is paying who and the expected outcome-you can pretty much pay any expert to come down on either side. or at least not "rule anything out."

[Sam Flynn]

If a scientist, in that particular field, can’t dismiss it on scientific grounds it’s difficult to understand how non-scientific experts in the field can say that they’ve disproved it.

By reading things carefully and applying a bit of objective logic. For example...

Turgoose: "[A]ll the random superficial scratches were later than the engravings."

Indeed. Carve the engravings on the Monday, polish and round them out on the Tuesday, and add some scratches on the Wednesday. Assuming that the rounding-out process didn't also create some scratches, in which case the hoaxer could have taken the rest of the week off to replenish his stocks of polish and scouring pads. As I said a couple of days back, that the engravings were underneath the scratches tells us about the sequencing of the marks, but nothing about their date. Not that Turgoose claimed otherwise, to be fair, but some might have interpreted his statement as saying something about the age of the marks, when it doesn't. The marks could have been made, and the scratches laid over them, at any time.

Turgoose: "Particles were seen in the bases of the scratches... It would seem that they are brass particles and appear to have come from the inscribing tool... they appear to have corroded surfaces, and again this may suggest some significant time since they were deposited."

Or the particles could have been left behind by a corroded instrument? Note, also, the cautious language used (it would seem... this may suggest), which is what I'd expect to see from a responsible scientist, so fair play to Turgoose. However, a non-scientist reading those words might skip those qualifying statements and conclude that Turgoose said that the engravings definitely had been there for a significant time, when he didn't.

Turgoose: "The wear apparent on many of the engravings, evidenced by the rounded edges of the markings and the 'polishing out' in places would indicate a substantial age for the engravings"

How much effort would it take to round/polish-out some engravings which were, after all, superficial in nature?

Turgoose: "The actual age would depend on the polishing regime employed, and any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation. Given these qualifications I would be of the opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer."

Given that it would depend on the polishing regime used, I don't think it would be uncharitable of me to suggest that one man's polishing regime would be another man's fake ageing process. Note also the major qualifier "and to some extent must remain speculation", which it would be wise not to overlook.

Bristol Uni:"I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago... This could explain why the silver enrichment at the base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch face and would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years."

Alternatively the watch was more recently polished, and after the engravings had been made. Note that the Bristol report qualifies its comments with "I understand that", as it would have been a tad naïve to have taken the claim that "the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago" at face value. On whose say-so? Did the watch come with a built-in polishing log that would confirm that it hadn't been polished more recently? Unlikely. With that in mind, perhaps Bristol might have qualified the closing statement thus: "This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten* years [assuming that it's true that it hasn't been polished since which, of course, it could have]."

(* Actually the report should have said "six to ten years", to be strictly accurate.)

[Graham]

Hi HS,

If a scientist, in that particular field, can’t dismiss it on scientific grounds it’s difficult to understand how non-scientific experts in the field can say that they’ve disproved it.

To be fair, neither Drs Turgoose nor Wild appeared to feel able to state absolutely categorically, and with no doubts at all, that the marks in the Watch were definitely old and absolutely could not be modern. Turgoose in particular did not rule out the possibility that the marks were recent.

Graham