Special Announcement

[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?

[The Baron]

What a great find of his Majesty!


Hooo Haaa


The Baron

[Iconoclast]

Science to prove my polishing theory? It's not a theory, it's common sense man ...

Okay, even if we all gave you your "It's Incredibly Easy to Age Scratchings in a Watch" theory, two things:

1) Why is it only ever noted by the dilettantes and the delinquents but not by Turgoose and Wild, the two acknowledged experts? After all, they were being asked this very question in effect!
2) Why has no-one - despite many requests - ever explained how the signature in the watch is such a good copy of Maybrick's actual signature?

I'd love to know!

Cheers,

Ike
Had a Power Nap
Feeling Magic

[Observer]

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

His brief attempt to polish out the engravings don't match Dr Turgoose's report

[MrBarnett]

Has anyone else every referred to an older female relative, family friend or close neighbour who wasn’t the sister of one of their parents as ‘aunt’ or ‘auntie’? Perhaps it’s just a Brit thing?

Please firm an orderly queue.

[Abby Normal]

Has anyone else every referred to an older female relative, family friend or close neighbour who wasn’t the sister of one of their parents as ‘aunt’ or ‘auntie’? Perhaps it’s just a Brit thing?

Please firm an orderly queue.

yeah, but not someone referring to someone elses "Aunt".

[erobitha]

His brief attempt to polish out the engravings don't match Dr Turgoose's report

Your commitment to link the polishing and old etching tool as the means of forgery are admirable but of course not correct.

The brass particles in the bass of the etchings could not be accounted for by any of the experts. No expert mentioned they could be faked in the way you describe.

If Turgoose was pondering the possibility that the etches themselves could look aged by using a multi stage process and numerous types of equipment that would indicate an expert knowledge would be required. Even if that were true and such expertise was used, it still does not account for that aged brass particle in the base of the etches.

What experts would do this and why? The watch remains in the family so no money changed hands and thereby it must have been an expert having a jolly good laugh. This cannot be done by amateurs or amateur knowledge. What was not clear about that in the report?

No report has backed up this old etching tool nonsense. It’s something the like of you and Orsam cling to but is not backed by any science.

[Abby Normal]

amazing none of the so called experts on the diary ever caught this fatal error.

another tour de force in the truth by Lord Orsam.

and in the blackmail piece.." you and me wrote the diary." in a private note to his wife threatening her. cmon.

we are all fortunate that Lord Orsam still has an interest in ripperology.

[MrBarnett]

Ah, so if your wife habitually referred to her mother’s best friend or cousin or whatever as ‘aunt x’, it would be impossible for you to ever refer to her as you wife’s ‘aunt’? Or for the woman to have been referred to as an aunt to a third party?

And I mean impossible, because the claim is that this is incontrovertible proof of the diary being a forgery.

It’s weaker than ‘one off’.

Toto has well and truly pulled the curtains aside this time.

[Observer]

No, Dundas may have got more than one of Mr Murphy's watches going, but if Dundas didn't remember the large ornate JO inscribed on the back cover of the Maybrick watch, or the clear H 9/3 inside it [engraved after the Jack/Maybrick scratch marks], and then described another watch entirely when asked about it, I'd say he had no chance at all of identifying and remembering a few barely visible scratch marks as 'inscriptions', and was even less observant than someone whose chosen pseudonym is Observer.

Love,

Caz
X

An experienced watch repairer having no chance of identifying markings to the inside back cover of a watch they were repairing? Really? Albert Johnston had no problem identifying the marks. Watch repairers invariably look at any marks inscribed upon such watches, they can tell who repaired or serviced the watch and when. Dundas would surely have remembered the words "I am Jack" and J Maybrick should he have saw them. Trouble is they were not there, Robbie Johnston added them at a later date

[Observer]

Has anyone else every referred to an older female relative, family friend or close neighbour who wasn’t the sister of one of their parents as ‘aunt’ or ‘auntie’? Perhaps it’s just a Brit thing?

Please firm an orderly queue.

I haven't

[Iconoclast]

yeah, but not someone referring to someone elses "Aunt".

Honestly, such an anti-climax.

My daughter - Izzy Iconcoclast - has a godmother in Scotland and also a friend of Mrs Iconoclast who, coincidentally, is called Margaret (this is all true). All her life, Izzy has called her 'Aunt Margaret'. Maybe, as Gary says, it's a Brit thing.

So imagine Izzy is going to Scotland to be with her godmother during an operation and she happens to say that she'll also be visiting her Aunt Margaret.

In my head for a few days or weeks, because I'm a bloke thinking about blokey things, are the words "Izzy Scotland godmother aunt". I'm not a violent man so let's imagine I'm thinking of going on strike even though we're all in lockdown.

I'm writing in my brilliant DAiry about Izzy's impending trip to Scotland and I write:

Izzy visits the city of dreams soon, I have decided I will wait until the time is ripe then I will strike with all my might. I shall buy her something for her visit. Will give her the impression I consider it her duty to visit her aunt. She can nurse the old girl and see her cousins while she's at it.

Now, all you have to imagine is that James Maybrick had it in his head when he wrote the entry in question "Florrie London godmother aunt". Maybe it was so irrelevant to him that it was only ever "Florrie London aunt".

So it is claimed by Dr Hopper that Florrie was off to visit her godmother, but maybe Maybrick had realised by then (April 1 1889), or maybe he still thought it was her godmother right up to the moment when Florrie told Dr Hopper she'd been to see her godmother (Maybrick [Thinks]: "Could have sworn it was her aunt").

"Florrie London godmother bills aunt murder tea Edwin races horses arsenic"
"Florrie London godmother aunt murder races horses arsenic"
"Florrie London aunt murder Edwin races horses arsenic tea"
"Florrie London bills aunt murder tea Edwin races horses arsenic"

The bitch visits the city of whores soon, I have decided I will wait until the time is ripe then I will strike with all my might. I shall buy the whore something for her visit. Will give the bitch the impression I consider it her duty to visit her aunt. She can nurse the sick bitch and see her whoring master.

As I say, such an anti-climax. It proves once again that Lord Orsam is an excellent researcher - the dark matter equivalent which perhaps is required in order to have a material Keith Skinner - but it most certainly does not prove the scrapbook was not written by James Maybrick.

Shame really - I was looking forward to a long break from all of this.

Ike
Still Here by the Looks of It

[StevenOwl]

David Orsam has announced today on his website that he found again another fatal error in the Diary that proves the Diary is fake.

https://www.orsam.co.uk/specialannouncement.htm

Without even reading it, I know he is right!

Well done David!


The Baron

It proves nothing. Absolutely pathetic.

[Iconoclast]

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?

If no-one has beaten me to it, "To sell it".

It's the same reason I, ironically, only ever wash my cars when I want to sell them.

[Observer]

What experts would do this and why? The watch remains in the family so no money changed hands and thereby it must have been an expert having a jolly good laugh. This cannot be done by amateurs or amateur knowledge. What was not clear about that in the report?

Then Stewart was telling lies, and did not attempt to polish out the engravings