One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

ok gotcha.

I think anyone who was being objective, and having looked at the watch themselves, not being able to see anything, would probably come to the conclusion then that it was all a bunch of crap. not still believe it and then actually use it as a reason to defend that the markings were there?!?

Gotcha? Clearly not! I don't need to 'defend' the fact that the markings were there but barely visible, Abby.

Can you really not see the point, when it's staring you in the face?

The markings are there, so assuming a hoaxer put them there to be discovered and believed, why did they do their level best to make them as difficult as possible for anyone to come across?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

The markings are there, so assuming a hoaxer put them there to be discovered and believed, why did they do their level best to make them as difficult as possible for anyone to come across?

Alternatively, might the inscriptions not simply have been a rush job by a clumsy, inexperienced person armed with an inadequate engraving tool?

[caz]

because knowing he hoaxed the diary and admitting to it in an affidavit, supplying as much detail that he already did was enough in his mind. I mean, how much detail do you have to include and perhaps at the time he still didn't even know he made that mistake?

But all the details he did include proved nothing, while all the details which could have proved his involvement, and which he'd have known about had he been the forger, were not included.

Doesn't that tell you something, Abby?

It tells me one of two things. Either he had no real intention of proving his own guilt, or he couldn't, because he had no inside knowledge.

Caz
X

[caz]

Alternatively, might the inscriptions not simply have been a rush job by a clumsy, inexperienced person armed with an inadequate engraving tool? A bit like the diary, perhaps, but with a different substrate and minus the ink?

Hardly, Gareth. Have you ever tried to inscribe initials, words and a passable signature inside the back of a watch, then artificially age them with lots of polishing until they are all but invisible to the naked eye, but still clear as day to professional examiners under powerful magnification, who would pronounce them consistent with being many decades old?

What could possibly go wrong?

If it were that easy, why has nobody repeated the exercise in the last quarter of a century to prove it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hardly, Gareth. Have you ever tried to inscribe initials, words and a passable signature inside the back of a watch, then artificially age them with lots of polishing until they are all but invisible to the naked eye, but still clear as day to professional examiners under powerful magnification, who would pronounce them consistent with being many decades old?

Alternatively, might they not simply have been a rush job by a clumsy, inexperienced person armed with an inadequate engraving tool?

I realise I'm just repeating what I said, but I believe it's still a potentially viable solution. I don't get the "all but invisible to the naked eye" bit, I'm afraid; they evidently were visible, otherwise they wouldn't have come to Albert Johnson's attention. As to the passable signature, "passable" just about sums it up.

[caz]

Alternatively, might they not simply have been a rush job by a clumsy, inexperienced person armed with an inadequate engraving tool?

I realise I'm just repeating what I said, but I believe it's still a potentially viable solution. I don't get the "all but invisible to the naked eye" bit, I'm afraid; they evidently were visible, otherwise they wouldn't have come to Albert Johnson's attention. As to the passable signature, "passable" just about sums it up.

Have you seen both signatures in Ripper Diary, Gareth? I would imagine it's not the easiest thing in the world to inscribe one's own signature that way, let alone copy someone else's. Maybe you know different.

More than just a 'passable' attempt if the hoaxer had no access to the real thing to copy. Uncanny might be a better word for it. Difficult enough to mimic a signature with a crude engraving tool if they had an example in front of them.

There's nothing to 'get' Gareth, unless you think I made it up. I could not see the markings, even though I knew they were there, and they were being pointed out to me. Had the light been better, or in the right place, I might have had more of a chance. Obviously the scratch marks must have been visible to Albert's workmate, who happened to notice them when the watch was opened and held up to the light in a different location. But they only became decipherable as actual letters and words when the watch was taken to the college lab and examined under a microscope.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think you made anything up, Caz, but the fact remains that the engravings were first noticed with the unaided eye.

[John Wheat]

So that, for you, is evidence that he did?

You could have knocked me down with half a feather.

Love,

Caz
X

Of course not. But it wouldn't surprise me that Mike was involved in the watch as well.

[Abby Normal]

Gotcha? Clearly not! I don't need to 'defend' the fact that the markings were there but barely visible, Abby.

Can you really not see the point, when it's staring you in the face?

The markings are there, so assuming a hoaxer put them there to be discovered and believed, why did they do their level best to make them as difficult as possible for anyone to come across?

Love,

Caz
X

ahh OK. theyre there. you just couldn't see them when you were looking at it.
how in the heck where they seen at all then to discover it?

[John Wheat]

I don't think you made anything up, Caz, but the fact remains that the engravings were first noticed with the unaided eye.

No she's just desperate to believe that Mike had nothing to do with the diary or watch for some unknown reason Sam. The evidence all points to Mike having fabricated the diary although to be quite frank I couldn't give a **** if Mike didn't write the diary it's clearly a modern forgery and so obviously not written by Maybrick to be almost irrelevant to this site Sam.

[caz]

Of course not. But it wouldn't surprise me that Mike was involved in the watch as well.

Any evidence that Mike and Albert had ever met when the scratches first came to light? Maybe Mike did it all by thought transference. Gareth seems to think it was 'a rush job by a clumsy, inexperienced person armed with an inadequate engraving tool', and you can't get much more inadequate than no tool at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

ahh OK. theyre there. you just couldn't see them when you were looking at it.
how in the heck where they seen at all then to discover it?

Read all the posts, Abby. I'm not going to spoon feed you by repeating myself.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Any evidence that Mike and Albert had ever met when the scratches first came to light? Maybe Mike did it all by thought transference. Gareth seems to think it was 'a rush job by a clumsy, inexperienced person armed with an inadequate engraving tool', and you can't get much more inadequate than no tool at all.

Love,

Caz
X

There is no evidence but the big question is where is your evidence Mike didn't write the diary? Or do you have none whatsoever?

[caz]

No she's just desperate to believe that Mike had nothing to do with the diary or watch for some unknown reason Sam. The evidence all points to Mike having fabricated the diary although to be quite frank I couldn't give a **** if Mike didn't write the diary it's clearly a modern forgery and so obviously not written by Maybrick to be almost irrelevant to this site Sam.

Who's 'she'? The cat's mother?

There's very good reason to believe Mike had sod all to do with the watch, John. If he could have claimed otherwise, he never did - not even when he was desperate to claim involvement in the diary's creation.

I agree with you that the diary's not in Maybrick's handwriting. But the watch is a lot more difficult to dismiss as a modern hoax. If it's not, then it presumably inspired someone to write the diary as a companion piece, or else it's a truly amazing coincidence.

You sound angry about something, John. There's really no need. It is what it is. Whatever that may be.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There is no evidence but the big question is where is your evidence Mike didn't write the diary? Or do you have none whatsoever?

How many times are you going to ask this strange question, John?

Nobody can prove Mike didn't write it unless or until they can prove someone else did.

Since neither of us can do that, you and I are in the same boat of not knowing: who wrote the diary; when it was written; why it was written.

I'm not ashamed to admit that.

Love,

Caz
X