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

[Graham]

If he didn't believe that his results justified the word he would have surely just said "the engravings might have been done in 1888/9 or equally they might not."

Analytical chemists and other analytical scientists don't couch their findings in such language, HS. I know it's difficult to get one's head around science-speak, but what you quote would probably be regarded by those paying for tests as no answer at all.

As Sam correctly says, the SEM and SAM tests don't challenge the possibility that the engravings were relatively new when tested.

The fact that the Watch appeared so soon after the Diary raised quite a few highly-sceptical eyebrows at the time, believe me.

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair enough Gareth. But I'd also assume that a scientist would understand the ramifications of using the word 'likely' when giving the results of his analysis. If he didn't believe that his results justified the word he would have surely just said "the engravings might have been done in 1888/9 or equally they might not."

[Sam Flynn]

he test that have been done so far in no way challenge the suggestion that the engravings aren’t from the correct period.

They don't in any way challenge the suggestion that the engravings are from the early 1990s either. This should be apparent if the reports are read carefully and with a critical, but objective, eye.

The fact that the markings on the watch were conveniently first noticed only after the "Maybrick" diary had been announced suggests strongly that the "Maybrick" watch was an opportunistic hoax made in response to the diary's publicity. The watch tests don't rule this out in the least.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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."

This paragraph pretty much sums up my point. Turgoose accepts the uncertainty as to the exact age due to the polishing regime. He uses the phrase ‘to some extent must remain speculation. But even after that unbiased qualification he still says that the engravings are likely to date back more than....

This is his opinion.

Now again I’ll stress that I’m not saying that the watch is genuine. I don’t know enough about the subject (and certainly not from a scientific point of view.) It seems clear however, that whichever way we view and analyse statements, the test that have been done so far in no way challenge the suggestion that the engravings aren’t from the correct period. Perhaps more tests might do just that. But until then, we are where we are.

[Hunter]

The victims in a nutshell:
It wasn't until Sugden's book in 1994 that Martha Tabram was seriously considered as a Ripper victim by a late 20th century author.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam has it in a nutshell - our posts crossed.

Your post was far more nutshell-like than mine, Graham

[Graham]

Sam has it in a nutshell - our posts crossed.

Graham

[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

[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.)

[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."

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Graham]

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

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?