Special Announcement

[The Baron]

What a great find of his Majesty!


Hooo Haaa


The Baron

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

It wasn't erobitha's explanation; it was Mr Stewart [sorry, Mr Murphy, as erobitha says], who sold Albert the watch! He said he noticed the scratch marks [which to the naked eye just look like random scratch marks at most, not engravings] and tried to make them less obvious before putting the watch on sale. Now, he may have been trying to do the impossible, but it was what he said he did, and I see no reason why he would lie about it, can you?

And he a jeweler, who undoubtedly had the equipment to hand, namely an eye loupe, did not have a look at the "scratch marks"? Also, can you think of a reason why Mr Stewart would try to make them less obvious before putting the watch on sale?

[Observer]

Where is the science that proves your polishing theory? Direct me to which report suggests that any of the polishing that took place could in anyway fake the aged brass particles in the base of the engravings? I seemed to have missed that bombshell. The polishing does not age it if anything it makes it harder to get a more accurate assessment of age as layers of various metal compounds are eroded. The aged brass particles in the base of the scratches is what dates the etchings being at least "tens of years old" - in 1994.

I will happily keep schtum when you provide that science. I never claimed the polishing was done to make the watch more attractive to sell. I think you find the antiques shop owner Ron Murphy who actually made that claim (Edit: It was Mr Stewart who did the polishing). As for clueless, some of us actually analyse clues properly and some of us don't. Observation is a little lacking from the "Observer". Another ironic twist in this saga.

Science to prove my polishing theory? It's not a theory, it's common sense man, why polish the inside back cover of a gold watch? The aged brass particles could be nothing more than the hoaxer using an aged engraving tool. Yes you did say the polishing was done to make the watch more attractive to sell, I've took a brief look to find the post but can't find it. Anyway another member of The Floorboard Faithful has subsequently said as much

" It wasn't erobitha's explanation; it was Mr Stewart [sorry, Mr Murphy, as erobitha says], who sold Albert the watch! He said he noticed the scratch marks [which to the naked eye just look like random scratch marks at most, not engravings] and tried to make them less obvious before putting the watch on sale."

But lets look at what Dr Turgoose said with regard to the inscriptions.

"They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process, using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing of artificial wearing stages"

Did Mr Stewart use this method? Indeed not. Why did Dr Turgoose not observe Mr Stewart's attempt to polish out the engravings? Of course Dr Turgoose could have got it all wrong when he said

"They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multi-stage process, using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing of artificial wearing stages"

[MrBarnett]

A final plea for mercy...?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-RQxD4Ff7dY

[The Baron]

Any last word?

Regret confession?!

Pleading for forgiveness?!

Repentance?! Contrition?!



The Baron

[Abby Normal]

Lord Orsam speaks!

[Kattrup]

...until the next opportunity for one of Lord O's inner circle to take a gratuitous swipe at the authors of Inside Story.

Has someone taken a gratuitous swipe at the authors of Inside Story?

Keith Skinner by way of Iconoclast concedes that it was a mistake, and you seemed to do the same:

Apologies if Inside Story misled anyone

It is unfortunate [...] and I have no excuses

and

I agree [...] Our 'error' in this instance was in not putting a date on the communication [etc]

But pretty quickly it's

people like someone to blame, don't they, and my back is broad enough.

and

a gratuitous swipe

I haven't yet seen anyone faulting the authors for making a mistake. No book is without error. How an author reacts to one is, of course, telling.

Shows how much faith they have in LOBSTER Day, if nothing else.

Hmm, does that qualify as a gratuitous swipe?

[Iconoclast]

Bloody Hell - talk about sailing close to the wind! Here's an idea, Ike - post a picture intended to represent the menacing charm of The Switchblade at midnight under a streetlamp under the intended victim's bedroom, and don't think too hard at the results you get from Googling "streetlamp female assassin". No - better still - be quite pleased with it!

Talk about possible typos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gulp! Now where the Hell is my 'Go' bag???

Ike
Gone But Not Forgotten
(Humble apologies, Caz, if this - as I am beginning to fear - is not a picture of a female assassin standing underneath a streetlamp.)

[Iconoclast]

Hi Iconoclast,

Your wish is my command.

But as for apologising, you stand more chance of getting a Blue Whale up your bum.

Until someone unearths Abberline's personal autograph book, the Diary will remain the ultimate example of Ripperological shenanigans, of which there are many.

Stay safe.

Simon

Hi Simon,

Arguably too much equivocation in there for my liking, but I'll take it as read (the night before LOBSTER Day changes DAiryWorld forever) that what you meant was a full and heartfelt retraction of every negative thing you've ever said about James Maybrick's candidature for Jack. Very decent of you, old boy.

Cheers,

Ike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Iconoclast,

Your wish is my command.

But as for apologising, you stand more chance of getting a Blue Whale up your bum.

Until someone unearths Abberline's personal autograph book, the Diary will remain the ultimate example of Ripperological shenanigans, of which there are many.

Stay safe.

Simon

[caz]

You're all being so reasonable, Caz. I think we can draw a line under this one now ...

Ike

...until the next opportunity for one of Lord O's inner circle to take a gratuitous swipe at the authors of Inside Story.

Shows how much faith they have in LOBSTER Day, if nothing else.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,
I think the problem was my fault ...
Love,
Caz
X

Hi Fellow Casebookers,

Now, this really would 'cork' you! Clearly affected by the blazing heat of the day, I've received another email from Keith Skinner - concerned no doubt that he'll go to bed one night soon with The Switchblade's shadow protruding from that streetlamp outside his bedroom window - to the effect that he takes full responsibility for the error regarding Bongo's bongtastic affy David of Jan 5, 1995.



Keith says:

I should have read that more closely in the context of what had previously been said. All that was very clear in my mind going into that meeting was I wanted to know why Mike had claimed to have forged the diary [Ike: to Harold Brough in 1994, if you're new to this game]. I knew nothing about the affidavit but had Barrett not signed a statement for Brough that what he had told him was the truth? That was probably the genesis of the confusion resulting in, inadvertently, misleading readers.

Keith also points out that he only became aware of the maroon diary saga on July 5 1995 and - as it forms a key part of Bongo's bongodavit - this reassures him that he definitely wasn't aware of the latter when he interviewed Barrett on Jan 18, 1995.

Whether protecting a lady's honour or terrified of her terrible midnight transformations (her favourite pub in Edinburgh is 'Deacon Brodie's', for goodness sake - inspiration for Jekyll and Hyde - what more do I need to say???), it is clear that the authors of Inside Story are hellbent on a dramatic Casebook-enabled re-enactment of the "Oh, by the way, my fork is dirty - could I get another, please?" sketch



This is brilliant: If I could just entice Seth Linder out of retirement to also take full responsibility for this error, we'd have the hat-trick! And then Sutton Publishing. And then any distributors. Oh and bloody WH Smith for selling dodgy, ill-edited texts! (Is it too late to get a refund???)

While I'm on a theme, I wonder if I could encourage Simon Wood, Bruce Robinson, Tom Westcott, Stewart Evans, Trevor Marriott, and anyone else who has made the terrible mistake of decrying the case against James Maybrick to come on here and apologise - ideally to me personally - for their heinous mistakes?

What could possibly go wrong with this wonderful ambition? [Quickly checks his watch ...]

PS Probably the last time Keith Skinner replies to one of my emails! But I can't help myself! He's like a Jack the Ripper God, for goodness sake - is there no end to my sacrilege???

Cheers,

Ike
Error Reporter and Ruthless Rooterouter of Published Typos
All in the Name of Truth and Integrity and What Have You

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

I just realised that we wrote that Mike assented to the meeting at his house on 18th January 1995 'to discuss his sworn statement'. It was a mistaken assumption on our part, writing in 2002/3, that he would obviously be asked to discuss the sworn statement we knew he had made 13 days earlier. We now know that he didn't discuss it at all, and nobody asked him to, because at the time none of those present knew about it.

A minor error, I would suggest, compared with the error made by Harris and co in keeping the statement under wraps for so long after it was made. Had we been wide awake to this fact at the time, and set it down in print, we'd have been accused of even more bias than we were.

But people like someone to blame, don't they, and my back is broad enough.

Love,

Caz
X

You're all being so reasonable, Caz. I think we can draw a line under this one now ...

Ike

[caz]

Hi Ike,

I just realised that we wrote that Mike assented to the meeting at his house on 18th January 1995 'to discuss his sworn statement'. It was a mistaken assumption on our part, writing in 2002/3, that he would obviously be asked to discuss the sworn statement we knew he had made 13 days earlier. We now know that he didn't discuss it at all, and nobody asked him to, because at the time none of those present knew about it.

A minor error, I would suggest, compared with the error made by Harris and co in keeping the statement under wraps for so long after it was made. Had we been wide awake to this fact at the time, and set it down in print, we'd have been accused of even more bias than we were.

But people like someone to blame, don't they, and my back is broad enough.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

I think the problem was my fault ...

I like it Cazeleon - taking one for the team! Let's hope those fine young men in blue do the same for 'Chelski! Chelski!' tomorrow afternoon and that they are not unduly distracted from their task by the shocking revelations coming out of Chigwell that a Liverpool cotton merchant who died in 1889 was done up like a kipper in 1992.

Okay, I'd say there's no malice at hand there, Caz, wouldn't you Casebook Contributors?

Now, here's the rub: I have only just realised that Bongo's affy David was not immediately published. I suspect that this is also true of most of your avid readers and my avid reader (Old Mrs Iconcoclast). A quarter of a century has passed, and it wasn't obvious!

Now, here's the rubberer rub: Why?

We know that Melvin Harris was behind the affy David, using the honest but well-intended but rather witless Alan Gray ('Mr Gullible') to do the grunt work of manipulating Bongo's mind (imagine the challenge!). So - given what dynamite it should have been - why the secrecy and the delay in publishing?

Is it at all possible that Harris - a researcher at heart - went off to check the facts before he dropped his new-found bombshell into the story and realised - Gulp! - not a single ******* word of it was true?

It is hard to imagine what else would have held back the most honourable Committee for Integrity (i.e., Melvin Harris) around the time he was publishing his own book on Jack.

Hmmm.

Ike