One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

I see, Ike. The particles were blackened because they were embedded.

You absolutely do NOT see, RJ. As I understood Wild's point, the particles were blackened due to the length of time they'd existed! The embedding did not age them, the implied length of time since they were embedded did that bit. His failure to note how easy it would be to get an old implement and embed those particles already aged tells me that he did not believe that that was how they were blackened when he saw them under his microscope.

So you are suddenly convinced that the blackened particle had to have aged 'in situ'? Yet only a day or two ago you suggested the exact opposite in Post #8572 (and the emphasis is all yours, Old Boy):

This is very curious. You seemed quite willing to accept that 'Maybrick' had left behind a blackened particle because he was using an "already corroded" implement (your own words), yet you now claim that your 'reading' of Dr. Wilde leaves such an explanation impossible?

Then why on earth did you suggest it?

This is such a dreadful, RJesque, Orsamesque trick and the two of you play it constantly. Take a comment referring to one thing and use it to disprove some other comment, entirely unrelated to it. When I commented about Maybrick potentially using an aged implement, it was in response to your implication - as I read it - that only a modern hoaxer could possibly have used an aged implement. I was simply pointing-out that that was logically fallacious. It didn't mean for a moment that I was suggesting that Maybrick did or did not actually use an aged implement. You have wilfully misconstrued my comment to attempt to score a cheap point.

Either you are making it up as you go along, Ike, or your left-hand doesn't know what your right-hand is typing. Or, I suppose, there is a third possibility: you haven't really thought any of it through, and you are now reduced to backpedaling.

Another cheap shot, RJ. Quite beneath you.

Meanwhile, you now seem to be suggesting that brass particles can only age (or blacken) when they are embedded in gold and silver. Do I have that right?

Sigh. No, only that they age through age. The clue is in the word.

Isn't that nonsensical? I've seen a number brass objects--monkeys, doorknobs, picture frames, etc., and they were blackened. How do you explain that, since none of these objects were embedded in a golden scratch?

I think you need to take a quick course in Logic 101, RJ. None of this follows from anything I have said.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Oh dear.

This is such a dreadful, RJesque, Orsamesque trick and the two of you play it constantly. Take a comment referring to one thing and use it to disprove some other comment, entirely unrelated to it. When I commented about Maybrick potentially using an aged implement, it was in response to your implication - as I read it - that only a modern hoaxer could possibly have used an aged implement.

I agree, Ike, that there is no point in us discussing the watch further, as you now reverted back to the usual nonsense.

I said nothing about a modern hoaxer in the post you were responding to. I merely posed a series of questions:

"In the general scheme of things, what is more likely to leave a trail of microscopic metal flakes or fragments?

A pristine and newish tool, or one that is already corroded and "darkened with age"?

Commonsense dictates the latter, doesn't it? How else would gold and silver manage to damage the tool that is scratching it?"

All entirely reasonable and fair-minded questions.

Yet, instead of actually commenting on these questions, you confirmed their validity by immediately suggesting that Maybrick himself could have used a corroded implement--which would certainly have been possible if he was the one who made the scratches.

Yes, possible--but if that was the case, how can we now determine the age of the particles? If a man can leave a corroded particle in 1888, he can leave one in 1992.

You now disown your own statement using the very obvious ruse that you 'read it' as a logic fallacy---but we both know this is poppycock.

Have a nice long discussion without me, Old Boy.

[Iconoclast]

Oh dear..

I said nothing about a modern hoaxer in the post you were responding to. I merely posed a series of questions.

To be clear, this is what happens when you take a comment in one post and attempt to slice it together with a comment on another post. There is every likelihood that you will not be constructing a logical argument and it should therefore be avoided if at all possible otherwise you run the risk of constructing an argument that someone simply wasn’t making.

For the record, I was simply stating that if aged particles could be embedded by an aged implement, then this could occur in any age, 1888 or 1988. It didn’t mean that I believed it did happen. My second comment was to remind everyone that this simple process was not mentioned by Wild, who knew what he was talking about as he was considered to be an expert in the matter.

Ike

[erobitha]

All sorts of implements made from brass can be used to etch things into gold. We know this is possible because it happened.

What RJ wants readers to believe is that Robbie Johnson consulted his Mohs scale from his home science kit and opted for a corroded antique brass implement to use to give the same effect as a brass implement of the time. Those pesky experts will never be able to tell the difference!

Except, the particle that was blackened was EMBEDDED. This means it fused with the gold. Robbie Johnson being the scientific genius he was, knew that due to similar softness of brass and gold a fusion of particles would happen naturally due to their close proximity on the Mohs scale. Had he been around today he may even discovered the higgs boson before those eggheads over at CERN.

Except the experts never picked up on this cheeky workaround. They must feel stupid now!

Clear sarcasm to one side, this theory might hold up if the watch was then sold on for a very healthy profit. It would demonstrate that the level of science and knowledge involved for Robbie's expertise to execute such a cunning plan paid off. It didn't. It remains in the same family.

[Iconoclast]

From Post #8559

04-06-2022, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
Ike - Is that a typo or did you mean to write 'fragments' instead of fragment?

I am willing to concede that you are rarely wrong on the finer points of note, RJ, and that therefore there was probably just the one fragment.

To be clear, there were multiple (not enumerated) particles observed by Wild's microscope but only one particle in the area of the engravings he subsequently formally analysed, hence his occasional reference to both 'particles' and 'particle'.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Except, the particle that was blackened was EMBEDDED. This means it fused with the gold.

Fused with the gold? This is a complete invention of yours; please point us to the appropriate section of Dr. Wild's report where he states the particle was fused.

The brass particle was embedded (stuck) in the scratch. It was not fused to anything.

Wild attempted to date the particle by 'etching' off microscopic layers of its surface. It was only after 45 minutes that he detected zinc oxide.

Since brass is an alloy made out of copper and zinc, this told him that he was now down to the metal (and below the surface corrosion), which, in turn, suggested the particle had been corroding for some years provided it had been kept in a 'normal environment,' (his phrase) which, I assume would also mean non-exposure to chemicals, etc.

1) nowhere does he tell us how much corrosion could be expected from a piece of brass that had been blackened by various chemicals. Would we expect different results? Or the same results? Was this question even posed? Since brass can be etched with ferric nitrate (to give one example) it seems to me that its corrosion necessarily would be quite deep.

2) nowhere does either Wild or Turgoose mention any reason why the particle couldn't have been already corroded ('with age') before it dislodged itself from the engraving tool and became buried in the scratch, nor is it even definitely proven (to my satisfaction) that these particles came from the engraving tool. They could have done, but how do we know that?

These are questions that should have been asked. Clarification was needed on a number of points. Were appropriate questions asked? Did Wild answer them? What had the Johnsons asked and/or told Wild that might have affected his comments?

It's not even clear who subsidized this examination. Feldman heavily implies it was Albert Johnson but Harrison claims she paid for it.

[rjpalmer]

Are you questioning the fact that particles of aged brass were found in the base of an engraving? I'm just wondering how they got there, if a brass implement cannot dig its way into 18ct gold, as you appear to imply.

No, this is not at all what I was implying.

Something was used to scratch the watch. Turgoose suggested it was a brass 'inscribing tool' and that pieces flaked off from this implement and became lodged in the base of the scratches.

He did qualify this assumption. He stated "it would seem" that these were brass particles" and it "appeared" as though they came off the inscribing tool. Wild took his word for it, suggesting the particle in question came from a 'brass engraving tool.'

As you know, not everyone immediately accepted that Turgoose was correct--Harris wondered if the particle could have been introduced into the scratched during polishing the watch. I don't see why this is impossible.

All I was pointing out is that the watch was 18 carat gold, which is 2.8 on the Mohs scale. Brass is 3.0. My only point is that it would be unusual for someone to think of using brass to inscribe gold and silver; a harder metal would be more common and more appropriate, which could give credence to Harris's theory that the particles found their way into the scratches by some other means.

I don't know that it matters all that much, since I've yet to see any reason why a hoaxer at any time between 1888 and 1992 couldn't have scratched the watch with an already corroded implement, and I don't think anyone else is able to discount this possibility, either.

[Iconoclast]

I don't know that it matters all that much, since I've yet to see any reason why a hoaxer at any time between 1888 and 1992 couldn't have scratched the watch with an already corroded implement, and I don't think anyone else is able to discount this possibility, either.

Other than because neither of the two experts commissioned to analysis the engravings mentioned this as a plausible reason for aged particles to be observed in scratches despite their both opining that this fact indicated that they were therefore unlikely to have been embedded there very recently ("last few years" as I recall)?

The notion that they would fail to do so is similarly facile to the following completely contrived exchange between imaginary football co-commentators:

Brian: "Chelsea have scored and in all of my thirty years of football commentary there is nothing I can think of which would give me cause to doubt this, John!"
John: "Well, unless someone was offside or the ball hit his hand before he shot, Brian"
Brian: "Other than those two reasons which are perfectly valid but which never would have occurred to me had you not mentioned them, John".

Et cetera.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

I didn't realize that the deeply studied science of scratches on the inside cover of watches had established "experts."

But I see that Ike has now entirely abandoned his previous admission that Maybrick could have used a corroded tool and is now even refusing to ask intelligent questions of those who had conducted these brief studies.

His faith is deeply moving. Amen, brothers and sisters.

One thing I've discovered in my studies is that most scientists have had no training in what might be called forgery or hoax-making.

We've seen this in connection with the alleged scarf that allegedly belonged to Kate Eddowes that allegedly had the alleged seminal fluid of Aaron Kosminski on it--allegedly.

Dr. J seems to have accepted pretty much everything he was told by his client and conducted his analysis based on that premise.

If we are not willing to question the findings of this "expert," than we can safely assume that it was Aaron Kosminski and not Sir Jimmay Maybrick who killed Kate Eddowes.

And who is Ike to question the "expert" opinion Dr. J?

The case has been solved: Kosminski dunnit.

[Iconoclast]

I didn't realize that the deeply studied science of scratches on the inside cover of watches had established "experts."

The definition of 'expert' is probably fairly fluid, but I suspect that we can all recognise one when we see them. Let me turn this around, do you believe - or, indeed, have strong reason to state that you 'know' - that neither Turgoose nor Wild deserved that epithet?

But I see that Ike has now entirely abandoned his previous admission that Maybrick could have used a corroded tool.

Please stop posting claims about me which are incorrect, RJ. I have not abandoned the obvious - the self-evident - possibility that James Maybrick created those engravings with a corroded implement. It's a possibility. No more than a possibility. I have not abandoned this claim at all. That would be like abandoning the claim that Abe Lincoln may have owned more than one top hat. On what grounds would one abandon such a possibility?

[caz]

I haven't read all of RJ's latest 'contributions' yet, as it's nearly cocktail hour and I don't want to spoil that simple pleasure.

But I think we can all agree that if Wild and Turgoose did not at least know what they were talking about, we can be sure RJ is no expert on this subject, nor do I imagine he is claiming to be, and to my knowledge he has never seen the watch, let alone under the microscope. So why on earth should anyone favour his opinions on how the scratches were made, or how recently they could have been made [which would have to be in mid 1993 if a Johnson brother was responsible], over the two men who examined them and reached much the same conclusion, that they were not put there recently by amateurs?

Michael Gove once said: "We've had enough of experts". This tends to happen when the amateurs don't like what the professionals are telling them.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Cue RJ and yet another outing for Baxendale...

[Iconoclast]

Cue RJ and yet another outing for Baxendale...

Oh God - as long as no-one raises the dreadful spectre of Kenneth T. Rendell and his 'more led than a pencil' routine ...

[caz]

My leap?

The engraving tool wasn't my suggestion: it was Dr. Robert Wild's. I was challenging the idea.



'Brass from the engraving tool.'

I just pointed out that I haven't seen any brass engraving tools; they've all been hardened steel.

But let's say Wild was just using the term 'brass engraving tool' in a generic sense: this could have been a brass nib, a bizarrely over-sharpened brass letter-opener, a brass pin.

My questions still remain. Why is it trailing behind particles? Why couldn't it have been already corroded? Why does Wild claim it was 'blackened with age' rather than just blackened, since any number of chemicals can blacken brass? How did he determine this? Why does he assumed the hoaxer would have to have implanted the particle deliberately, rather than accidentally?

The report leaves far more questions than answers, but perhaps this is to be expected, since Wild complained that he only had brief access to the watch and that his comments were provisional.

And it always bothers me when Feldman uses so many dots ... ... .... where he has clearly left something out of Wild's statement....

You could simply have posted a link to Wild's actual statement if Feldy's use of dots bothered you so much:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/watchreport.3.html?showpage=3

It might be useful to stick to challenging Wild, rather than attacking Feldman, whose expertise on the scratches would have been no better or worse than yours or mine.

It might also be useful to direct your questions to Wild himself, as only he could offer clarification regarding his findings and conclusions.

The fact remains that Wild stated that the embedded brass particles were from the engraving tool. It wasn't a 'suggestion' or an 'idea'. You are directly challenging a statement.

It was the 'very heavily contaminated' state of the particle investigated that suggested to Wild that it had been embedded in the surface for 'some considerable time'. He had previously stated that subsequent polishing of the engravings would have removed some surface layers from the original surface, 'but not from the base of the scratch'.

I still think it's hardly likely that Wild would have failed to mention it, if these particles could easily have come from anything old and made of brass, coming into contact with the watch surface in recent years and accidentally becoming embedded in the base of an engraving. It's all down to what Wild considered to be consistent with the effect he observed under the microscope, and he only offered the two reasonable possibilities. The particle was either introduced naturally, many years before, becoming embedded and corroded over time, or it had to be introduced deliberately to mimic that natural occurrence, by someone with the skill and knowledge to produce the same effect.

[rjpalmer]

I haven't read all of RJ's latest 'contributions' yet...

That's never stopped you from commenting before.

No; I am not challenging Wild's 'expert' reasoning, nor his explanation.

Indeed, it is impossible for me to do so.

Why?

Because he never offered any explanation in the first place.

How can I challenge what hasn't been stated?

I'm merely asking questions and I can readily appreciate why you find these questions so uncomfortable--you can't answer them.

Nowhere in this short report --a report that Wild admits was provisional--is one very fundamental question addressed.

And I defy anyone here to tell me the question isn't an entirely reasonable one.

Why can't an already corroded piece of brass become embedded in a scratch?

Commonsense dictates that it can.

Yet nowhere does Wild even discuss this possibility. He does not explain why--or if--he even rejected this possibility.

It's merely left a blank--an unknown.

No one has the sense to find that the least bit odd?

It's like a gaping hole in the analysis. It's something that obviously should have been discussed, but for some reason, wasn't.

Didn't the diary detectives even ask him about it?

So, as far as I am concerned, all the usual snide commentary aside, what you and Ike are really saying, is "Yes, we know this is a discussion board, but let's not discuss it. Please don't ask any uncomfortable questions, because we don't have the answers. We just believe!"

But then, maybe like Jay Hartley, you also believe the gold and the brass particle were "fused."