Special Announcement

[Observer]

Aunty so and so. Piffle. Used by both my family and my partner's to refer to a close female relative or friend. Even more common in the older generations when people looked after each other unconditionally.

Much less of a problem than the handwriting or breast placement.

And no, I'm not a diary supporter. Just a supporter of good sense and provable facts.

Hi peg&pie, let's not forget about the two farthing at the Chapman murder scene. What's your opinion with regard to that?

[Iconoclast]

It's nothing like it, and if you can detect the resemblance, then it's pure coincidence

I was waiting for it and you didn't let me down!

Just as Florence's initials on Kelly's wall have made it onto every published version of the infamous photograph since 1888 but the diary detractors either can't see them or simply say they're not there, I knew that the response from you (or one like you) would be along the lines of "It's not a match"!

Oh you indulge me, Sir!

[The Baron]

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

The true definition of a Ripperologist!

Orsam is a one-off researcher!


The Baron

[Observer]

Please discuss and debate WITHOUT engaging in personal attacks.

Thank you.

JM

Sorry Mr Menges that last one went out before I saw your post

[peg&pie]

Aunty so and so. Piffle. Used by both my family and my partner's to refer to a close female relative or friend. Even more common in the older generations when people looked after each other unconditionally.

Much less of a problem than the handwriting or breast placement.

And no, I'm not a diary supporter. Just a supporter of good sense and provable facts.

[Observer]

As I say, cut out the Billy Bollocks and answer the question.

Assuming you can, of course ...

Speaking of bollocks, why did the author of the Diary refer to there being two farthings at the Chapman murder scene? Assuming you can of course.

[jmenges]

Please discuss and debate WITHOUT engaging in personal attacks.

Thank you.

JM

[Observer]

Let's cut out the Billy Bollocks, Observer.

In your (frequently all-too ill-thought-out) opinion, how did the signature in the watch get to be such a good analogue for Maybrick's true signature on his marriage certificate?

Answer this one, and we can start to really engage in the realities of the watch.

It's nothing like it, and if you can detect the resemblance, then it's pure coincidence

[Observer]

Warning: A poster is attempting to use questionable personal opinions to make an argument!

You started it by insisting that Maybrick was JTR

[Iconoclast]

Yeah right, you're full to the brim with Nurse Yappy's liquid cudgel, any more administered for the DT's would finish you off

As I say, cut out the Billy Bollocks and answer the question.

Assuming you can, of course ...

[Observer]

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

Ike
Still Here by the Looks of It

Yeah right, you're full to the brim with Nurse Yappy's liquid cudgel, any more administered for the DT's would finish you off

[Iconoclast]

Let's cut out the Billy Bollocks, Observer.

In your (frequently all-too ill-thought-out) opinion, how did the signature in the watch get to be such a good analogue for Maybrick's true signature on his marriage certificate?

Answer this one, and we can start to really engage in the realities of the watch.

[erobitha]

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

No. Because you have twisted Turgoose’s words. He never claimed it WAS faked in this manner, he merely pondered how it could be done using a multi stage layering processes and numerous equipment with expert knowledge if the aim was to fake ageing. It was possible with expert knowledge and numerous equipment. He never claimed it WAS done this way. Just a theory.

So logically why would an expert go to such trouble when the watch has remained in the family?

Maybe the watch was just polished as the jewelller described and has actually is nothing to do with the theory of Turgoose. Just handier if you can link them I guess.

Again no expert has supported this old etching tool nonsense that supposedly could provide the aged brass particle in the base of the etches with no trace of other particles down the sides of the etches - just the base.

Then there is Maybrick’s signature. The loop on the K is pretty darn close to the one on his marriage register. A forger pre internet with expert watch engraving knowledge with expensive equipment seeks out a copy of the marriage license to just let the Johnsons keep the watch?

Still, let that none of that stand in the way of the narrative you wish to portray.

[MrBarnett]

What a shame he didn’t just present it as an interesting anomaly, with possibly significant implications. He would have got a thumbs up from me for that.

[Iconoclast]

Really, it's like beating yer bonce against the wall. It's pointless. A potential buyer wouldn't give a hoot if the inside back cover of a gold watch they were purchasing had a few "hardly visible" scratch marks in evidence. It doesn't detract from the watches aesthetic appearance

Warning: A poster is attempting to use questionable personal opinions to make an argument!