Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caz View Post
    Hi Abby,

    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.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    How can you be sure that is actually the case Caz?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      I agree with your post Abby but the only point that I would make is that Maybrick would have been unlikely to have some jeweller engrave ‘I am Jack’ on his watch.
      now that's funny
      "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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Spider View Post
        I find it interesting should the 'Diary' be a late forgery/hoax, that the originator of the alleged 'Maybrick Watch', (and the markings upon it being 'many tens of years old'), was, all those years earlier also throwing Maybrick's name in the frame. What a coincidence.
        It would certainly be a coincidence were the markings actually "many tens of years old" but the expert who carefully examined the watch and stated this as his qualified opinion also said, "They could have been produced recently and deliberately aged by polishing".

        Comment


        • Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
          I've been thinking about the watch again recently myself. I just can't understand why it gets swept under the carpet and Diary takes centre stage.
          I don't know who you think has been sweeping it under the carpet, Stephen, but regarding this thread, as I've had occasion to say before, it is expressly about the diary (see thread title). So it's hardly surprising that we have not been discussing the watch. If you want to discuss the watch you could always start a new thread.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            It would certainly be a coincidence were the markings actually "many tens of years old" but the expert who carefully examined the watch and stated this as his qualified opinion also said, "They could have been produced recently and deliberately aged by polishing".
            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. Also given that the scribings were made by more than one implement makes it quite unlikely that it was concocted by a forger.
            I thought that raising the watch on a diary thread may cause problems to some but the two items are linked and considering the possible time differences in their creation does raise some questions.
            Maybe a Diary and Watch thread would be more appropriate then? Sometimes if things are discussed in isolation things can be missed.
            Last edited by Spider; 02-22-2018, 02:19 PM. Reason: Update
            ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

            Comment


            • 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?

              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?

              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.

              Comment


              • 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

                Comment


                • 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


                  Comment


                  • 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.
                    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


                    Comment


                    • 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

                      Comment


                      • 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!

                        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


                        Comment


                        • 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

                          Comment


                          • 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

                            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.
                            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

                            Comment


                            • 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

                              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

                              Comment


                              • 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.
                                Iconoclast
                                Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X