Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post



    Now open wide... when the meds kick in you should be able to answer my watch query.
    Is there any of that fluorescent trifle left, I'd much prefer that?

    And the watch. Do you think it's genuine?

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Hi Abe,

    Great post - I loved it! (Could we get some lobster GIFs in there next time, I wonder?)

    Just a quick note of clarification before The Switchblade parks outside your gaff in the dead of night, Inside Story is definitely not a pro-Maybrick text in the sense that it doesn't have a pro-Maybrick agenda. If it reads like a pro-Maybrick text, that will be because there is a natural pro-Maybrick narrative within the Ripper history which is rarely (if ever) contradicted by the existing evidence, so Messrs Morris, Skinner, and Linder simply reported what was on the record via research and interviews and - if that caused the eventual book to feel more pro- than anti-Maybrick - that would be because that was where the evidence took them.

    We know Morris is on Interpol's Dangerous Persons list, and Skinner (who favours Druitt, by the way) and Linder look to me like a right pair of bruisers (probably recruited by Morris way back when for some of her nefarious activities) so - unless you correct yourself - I suspect that your dystopian nightmare is going to be even more dystopian than mine.

    Now, what shall I have for lunch? Oh - I know!

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Ike,

    I hope you’re not having lunch with Jane Mansfield. (See Derek and Clive)

    Gary

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    Oh I have plenty of time at the moment, the obligatory straight jacket when entering this thread has slipped somewhat, and I can just manage to type. I can't for the life of me think why any experienced jeweler would attempt such a thing can you? Rubbing out insignificant scratches from the inside back cover to enhance the watches appearance? It's absurd. I can only think he was going along with the report, and for some strange reason he said he was the one who tried to polish out the inscriptions.
    And why on earth do you suppose any jeweller would have done that, with people like you in the world, waiting to describe such a claim as 'absurd'?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    Of course there are no spelling mistakes in the DAirY (bejabbers they've got me doing it now) are TrEhE, damn? Never the less, the Triple F's (Floor Board Faithful) insistence that Mike Barrett had nothing to do with the creation of the Diary (that's better) is in tact. I've all ways thought it a fake
    Have you actually read Mike's handwritten work, as posted by Ike, which was supposedly copied faithfully from ten 'missing pages' removed from the diary and kept in a bank vault in case of future need?

    And have you even read the diary facsimile, in order to make a fair and balanced comparison regarding the spelling?

    Trevor's a former cop and Columbo would like to have been a gumshoe. That's worrying enough, so please don't tell me you hold literacy classes or I think I will have the screaming abdabs and have to lie down in a darkened room.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    By the way Murphy was the watch repairer was he not? He said he didn't notice any inscriptions to the watch. So who are you saying it is who tried to polish them out?

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    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?

    Logically, he should now be your prime suspect for making the scratch marks, so I'm looking forward to hearing how this lets him off in your opinion, while still leaving the Johnsons guilty.

    In your own time.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Oh I have plenty of time at the moment, the obligatory straight jacket when entering this thread has slipped somewhat, and I can just manage to type. I can't for the life of me think why any experienced jeweler would attempt such a thing can you? Rubbing out insignificant scratches from the inside back cover to enhance the watches appearance? It's absurd. I can only think he was going along with the report, and for some strange reason he said he was the one who tried to polish out the inscriptions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Nothing wrong with Mike's imagination. He even imagined 9/11 happening on 9th November, so he could connect the former with MJK's murder and make something of it.

    Needless to say, Mike's PROLOGE and CHAPTHER ONE make for pure comedy gold, and Robert was so impressed he nearly did himself a mischief laughing.

    Slight problem though, the story was meant to be deadly serious.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Of course there are no spelling mistakes in the DAirY (bejabbers they've got me doing it now) are TrEhE, damn? Never the less, the Triple F's (Floor Board Faithful) insistence that Mike Barrett had nothing to do with the creation of the Diary (that's better) is in tact. I've all ways thought it a fake

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    You moonlighting taking calls for Sidmouths Old Bill? Get back to your proper job dishing out the meds in the Cuckoo's Nest.
    Sorry, Observer. It won't happen again.

    Now open wide... when the meds kick in you should be able to answer my watch query.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    The watch??? It's the fakest of fake things!!! I've pointed out to you on a previous occasion that nobody religiously cleans the inside cover of a gold pocket watch. There's no need to polish a gold pocket watch full stop, gold doesn't tarnish. And yet someone polished those initials on the inside back cover, polished them enough for the examiner, (I forget who it was,) to include the observation in his report. I maintain that the reason for the polishing was to fake an aged appearance for the inscriptions. The forger would have been better served to have just left them as they were, that is looking pristine, for that is what they would have looked like had they been genuine and truly inscribed in 1889, as I said no one polishes the inside back cover of a gold pocket watch. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but your explanation for the polishing was down to the fact that the seller of the watch wanted to polish the inscriptions out to make the watch more attractive to a potential buyer!!! Incredible!!! If you're going to provide an alternative which supports the authenticity of the watch, it's better to provide a credible one don't you think? Otherwise I'd advise you to keep shtum, it only makes you appear clueless.
    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?

    Logically, he should now be your prime suspect for making the scratch marks, so I'm looking forward to hearing how this lets him off in your opinion, while still leaving the Johnsons guilty.

    In your own time.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 07-28-2020, 10:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    The watch??? It's the fakest of fake things!!! I've pointed out to you on a previous occasion that nobody religiously cleans the inside cover of a gold pocket watch. There's no need to polish a gold pocket watch full stop, gold doesn't tarnish. And yet someone polished those initials on the inside back cover, polished them enough for the examiner, (I forget who it was,) to include the observation in his report. I maintain that the reason for the polishing was to fake an aged appearance for the inscriptions. The forger would have been better served to have just left them as they were, that is looking pristine, for that is what they would have looked like had they been genuine and truly inscribed in 1889, as I said no one polishes the inside back cover of a gold pocket watch. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but your explanation for the polishing was down to the fact that the seller of the watch wanted to polish the inscriptions out to make the watch more attractive to a potential buyer!!! Incredible!!! If you're going to provide an alternative which supports the authenticity of the watch, it's better to provide a credible one don't you think? Otherwise I'd advise you to keep shtum, it only makes you appear clueless.
    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.
    Last edited by erobitha; 07-28-2020, 10:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Caz, posting from Sidmouth Police Station [or I would be if I knew where it was]
    X
    You moonlighting taking calls for Sidmouths Old Bill? Get back to your proper job dishing out the meds in the Cuckoo's Nest.
    Last edited by Observer; 07-28-2020, 10:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post

    I’m not sure what a WUP is, but if you’re flirting with me...Actually I find Barrett fascinating. With his imagination I can’t believe he hasn’t written more stories. I’m not here to wind up anyone, just voicing my opinion like everyone else. If you want to believe it that’s your right. I personally have not seen any proof that it is.
    Well he'd find it tricky now, Columbo, as Mike Barrett died in 2016.

    But in 2008, he did send the diary's original publisher, Robert Smith, the first chapter of a book he was hoping to impress him with, called Jacks Back.

    Nothing wrong with Mike's imagination. He even imagined 9/11 happening on 9th November, so he could connect the former with MJK's murder and make something of it.

    Needless to say, Mike's PROLOGE and CHAPTHER ONE make for pure comedy gold, and Robert was so impressed he nearly did himself a mischief laughing.

    Slight problem though, the story was meant to be deadly serious.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    The watch my dear boy, the watch.
    The watch??? It's the fakest of fake things!!! I've pointed out to you on a previous occasion that nobody religiously cleans the inside cover of a gold pocket watch. There's no need to polish a gold pocket watch full stop, gold doesn't tarnish. And yet someone polished those initials on the inside back cover, polished them enough for the examiner, (I forget who it was,) to include the observation in his report. I maintain that the reason for the polishing was to fake an aged appearance for the inscriptions. The forger would have been better served to have just left them as they were, that is looking pristine, for that is what they would have looked like had they been genuine and truly inscribed in 1889. As I said no one polishes the inside back cover of a gold pocket watch. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but your explanation for the polishing was down to the fact that the seller of the watch wanted to polish the inscriptions out to make the watch more attractive to a potential buyer!!! Incredible!!! If you're going to provide an alternative which supports the authenticity of the watch, it's better to provide a credible one don't you think? Otherwise I'd advise you to keep shtum, it only makes you appear clueless.
    Last edited by Observer; 07-28-2020, 10:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    On some of the logic displayed on this thread I could go to my solicitor tomorrow and draw a picture in crayon of the Mona Lisa and claim it was me wot painted it. I took some crayons and some paper and just drawed it. I did it by soaking the paper in olive oil and then put it under the grill for a bit and then so put some crayons in some sugar water to dissect the particles so it would look aged. I have a GCSE in art and sometimes I paint the odd air fix kit so my credentials as a world class painter means I can pull it off. I have no actual proof I did this but as I said it under oath it must all be true. You have enough science to crack on with there and figure it out yourselves. Be aware though I will retract this statement at a later date too.
    Be careful, erobitha, or Trev and Columbo might pay you a visit and charge you with forgery, without even playing good cop, bad cop first.

    Whatever you do, don't swear an affy-David in two years' time. If anyone refers back to your post here, you'll never hear the end of it.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    ...Oh, one more thing. Outside of the Diary, what ties has anyone come up with for Maybrick as a viable suspect? He doesn't match the descriptions, he was much older and in ill health. Thinking this Diary is real doesn't matter if you can't make a case for Maybrick.
    What has any of this to do with your belief in Bongo as the diary's author, Columbo? Are you saying there have only ever been two people on the planet who could possibly have written it? Maybrick or Barrett? Two people whose handwriting bears no resemblance to what's in the diary?

    Words fail me - almost.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X