One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I hold Albert above any suspicion. Antiques dealers not so much. By the way the watch was purchased by Albert in July 1992.

Ah, I see. So it's only Suzanne Murphy and her father and the Dundas chap that we have to add to the conspiracy. Thanks for the clarification.

All for the sake of selling a watch at fair market value.

[erobitha]

Ah, I see. So it's only Suzanne Murphy and her father and the Dundas chap that we have to add to the conspiracy. Thanks for the clarification.

All for the sake of selling a watch at fair market value.

I don’t believe the provenance they told was 100% true. No antiques dealer would admit to taking stolen goods knowingly or by accident. They are at least guilty in my eyes of not telling the truth that an unknown scouser sold them the watch in and around March / April 1992.

[erobitha]

What if the watch had belonged to Maybrick, the owners caught wind of the diary and engraved the Jack stuff?

Using the same knowledge and expertise outlined by those experts who examined the watch?

[caz]

Well I personally do not believe a Nut would bother arranging bits of guts and making neat little piles of things. Of course the Freemasons would admit they were involved if asked! After all, they are nice blokes. Who are still assisting and hiding "brothers" no doubt. I have never heard of Osram and I do not believe every theory I read. But when I read an account of anything to do with JtR, sooner or later it's, "if, possibly, could of, maybe, etc.that.is not history that is story telling. Robinson told his story, bits are very good, but the truth is still out there and despite what this board say s, I am investigating a connection between the murders, the masons/golden dawn and any other weird brotherhood. Because one thing I am convinced of is that the murders were ritualistic.

Osram used to make light bulbs, miakaal4.

You've heard of 'that light bulb moment'?

Orsam, on the other hand, thinks he's had a few. Light bulb moments, that is.

Even though his last post here was two years ago, it's like he's never been gone, with all the string pulling.

Just as 'bumbling buffoon' is argued to have been the result of a single individual's 'light bulb moment' from mid 20th century America, copied by countless others who lacked the wit to ever put two such words together, Orsam is still flicking the light switch to make two and two equal five, knowing he can count on fans who can't count.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Try not to disturb the yellow flamingo asleep on the deckchair on your way out.

Is he a Maybrick believer?

[Observer]

I don’t believe the provenance they told was 100% true. No antiques dealer would admit to taking stolen goods knowingly or by accident. They are at least guilty in my eyes of not telling the truth that an unknown scouser sold them the watch in and around March / April 1992.

Yeah tell it to the yellow flamingo

[rjpalmer]

They stayed in the base, embedded over time.

Erobitha. What do you mean "embedded over time"?

I take it you mean darkened over time?

Doesn't plain old fashioned commonsense suggest that if a brass particle can be embedded in gold, it can be embedded after it has already "darkened" with age? (Not to mention accidently darkened 'in situ' by a cleaning solvent?)

The reason that many people believe the watch is a hoax is that the circumstantial evidence appears (to their way of thinking) stronger than the forensic evidence, which is weak and inconclusive.

I do admit that I had forgotten that Albert had bought the watch in July 1992, but we still have the jeweler, the watch repairman, the members of the Murphy family.

It really pushes credibility long beyond the breaking point to think that these seemingly ordinary people were in on some black market scam. What evidence is there for it?

[Harry D]

Using the same knowledge and expertise outlined by those experts who examined the watch?

If someone was trying to create a hoax? Yes.

Don't you find it the least bit fishy that the watch surfaced a few weeks after the Maybrick diary was publicized?

[rjpalmer]

Just as 'bumbling buffoon' is argued to have been the result of a single individual's 'light bulb moment' from mid 20th century America, copied by countless others who lacked the wit to ever put two such words together.

Well, I'm going to drop the matter, but seriously, Caz, this is your explanation?

Looking through many different newspaper articles in America, as well as a few television scripts and book reviews, and even a crossword puzzle, I see the term in use in America from 1949 onwards. And lo, an independent ngram (that limits itself to digitized books) repeats the same pattern--abundant examples from about 1950 onward.

The phrase is even used in a punk rock song. It's used to describe Mussolini in 1950 and Khrushchev in 1960. It's used in a comic strip.

Are you suggesting that all these various writers independently came up with this same alliterative insult, rather than it being something they had heard? Is this how language works?

I can only conclude that you must also believe that before 1949 people really did "lack the wit" to ever put the two words together. And this is why we haven't yet been able to find a single solitary example?

Pardon me if I find this explanation strangely desperate, though I do understand why it would be convenient.

[Observer]

The watch and the scrapbook (we can park the bag and key) were found at the same time. The watch ended up in an antiques shop not too far

Hey, it's just occurred to me, perhaps the key was the key missing from Kelly's room

[erobitha]

Yeah tell it to the yellow flamingo

Still here then?

[erobitha]

Hey, it's just occurred to me, perhaps the key was the key missing from Kelly's room

Who knows. I don’t.

[erobitha]

If someone was trying to create a hoax? Yes.

Don't you find it the least bit fishy that the watch surfaced a few weeks after the Maybrick diary was publicized?

I did until I actually read the science.

[erobitha]

Erobitha. What do you mean "embedded over time"?

I take it you mean darkened over time?

Doesn't plain old fashioned commonsense suggest that if a brass particle can be embedded in gold, it can be embedded after it has already "darkened" with age? (Not to mention accidently darkened 'in situ' by a cleaning solvent?)

The reason that many people believe the watch is a hoax is that the circumstantial evidence appears (to their way of thinking) stronger than the forensic evidence, which is weak and inconclusive.

I do admit that I had forgotten that Albert had bought the watch in July 1992, but we still have the jeweler, the watch repairman, the members of the Murphy family.

It really pushes credibility long beyond the breaking point to think that these seemingly ordinary people were in on some black market scam. What evidence is there for it?

1) I asked the yellow flamingo if he knows what the bobbins you were talking about re darkened over time? That’s oxidisation yes. The particles are not loose they are embedded and are not natural to the original metal. Both I and the Flamingo are in agreement we are both at a loss to your version of science
2) What black market scam? I simply said I don’t believe the antiques dealers wanted to admit they bought a watch off a man off the street. Who they may have known or not known. Association of theft is not good for business. Nice story about sitting in a box for 20 years and then suddenly one day deciding to clean it up and sell it. Antiques stay antiques for ages, by being virtue of being antique. Who would dare doubt the Lancaster shop story which by the way links to an unknown Liverpool man.

[Observer]

Still here then?

No, I found that hole in the fence