Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let's discuss the watch!

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

  • Speaking of sausages Caroline, anytime you find yourself on the front at Exmouth, try the little tea hut right next to the cricket field. Sausage and egg baps to die for, and a proper cream tea with home made scones for afters. Mrs B and I are regulars. Lovely.

    Comment


    • Thanks Paul, I'll bear that in mind. Sounds delicious.

      I treated myself to a daily special ice cream cornet yesterday - rhubarb and custard, it was yummy. The tide was out so I was able to have a lovely paddle along the sandy bit below all the pebbles. The sea was really warm.

      I'm just about to listen to the replay of Sid Valley Radio's Sunday Mod slot, presented by my very own Mr. Brown of Sidmouth! Then I'll read and try to respond to Mr. Lucky's post.

      Here's a link if anyone fancies listening in. Ten til twelve this morning:

      http://sidvalleyradio.co.uk/

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mr. Lucky View Post
        Hi Caz,

        Wild has nothing to do with it, lets just stick to Turgoose for the moment.
        Whatever you say, Mr. L.

        OK, The purpose of the report was to study the “relative ages” of the marks, the principle being the more recent scratches cut through the previous ones, all perfectly reasonable.

        Some of the scratches appear to be different – for which he assumes that they are cut using different tools - however this is not the case at all, and his claims that they are really needs substantiating. Turgoose field is corrosion - a natural/artifical process of chemically changing the surface of metals , so what direct experience does he have of man made markings in an inert metal like 18 c gold?
        Absolutely no idea, Mr. L. He was engaged long before I was, and my 'field' is about as far removed from his field as it's possible to get.

        He also claims that the “brass particles” found in “a” and “k” , “appear to come from the inscribing tool”

        What does he mean by this? That they are being transfered from the previous time the tools were used, which happened to be on a piece of brass. (ie, contamination)

        Or that the tool used was made from brass, and the brass particles “of very similar appearance” found in the “a” and “k” originate from the inscribing tool itself?

        How many brass particles of a “very similar appearance” are there ?
        Again, I can't interpret his words for you. If you really want answers you could try contacting the man himself, if he's still around. I'm not sure what else I can do for you.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

        Comment


        • Just a quick Question...

          Hi all! Been out of touch for a while on JTR stuff and so you'll have to correct me on my naivety here - and I'm also sorry if this has been mentioned beforehand in this thread... But have the scratched initials been dated on evidence of when they were actually made, or solely dated by the impregnated fragments of the tool that made them? Just asking because I seem to remember that issue was never clear to me several years ago. But I remember thinking, at the time, that that would mean a whole world of difference.

          Comment


          • Hi Paul,

            You could try this link:

            https://www.casebook.org/suspects/ja...brick/may.html

            If you scroll down the page you will see links to the watch analyses/reports by Drs Turgoose and Wild, which will give you the various reasons for their conclusions.

            I think I'm right in saying there has been no new forensic information since, just many attempts over the years to interpret these reports!

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

            Comment


            • I have yet to find a picture that really shows the etched marks. The picture here, about #147, is a great picture but not much of the etching shows.

              I have read most of this thread and see the subject of brass finally came up. I note in the scientific reports something about silver also but am unsure whether the silver found was considered part of the original gold. Silver can appear with gold naturally.

              I think a modern forger would have used something like a dry ballpoint pen to make such marks. Diamond pens for etching designs on glass are not that hard to find.

              The aged brass found is very interesting. When I was little my mother always said never to use a common pin to remove a splinter from a finger because pins caused infection. The reasoning behind this was pins were made of brass which has a rough surface area that can carry bacterial infection, even if the pin is plated with another metal. (My use of the term "common pin" means small, dressmakers' straight pins. Mom always used the term common pin. The first word is emphasized.)

              So what I am wondering is if a form of pin, perhaps a stick pin or hat pin could have been used for the etchings? Perhaps a brass stick pin, plated with silver? I think too it may be possible that a dry pen nib could have been used.

              A pin, like a hat pin, would be very useful for this sort of work, I think. 18 kt gold is softer than 14k. I have had friends from Europe who would never buy gold jewellery that was less than 18 kt but a problem with this is the softness of the gold, thus, for instance, 18 kt gold rings tend to scratch and wear out much sooner than do 14 kt rings.

              As I understand the scientific papers, some of the brass particles from the watch were aged, meaning aged in a natural sense over time.

              If a hoaxer had used an old, brass implement like a pin, would the aged brass implement shed aged brass particles into the etchings while they were being made?
              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

              Comment


              • I think an old pen nib was used too. It would account for the ridge and furrow shape seen in some of the scratches.

                Silver is part of the alloy that is 18 carat gold.

                I don't see why the brass particles found couldn't have been well corroded when they found their way into the scratches either, but the scientists clearly were impressed by that feature.

                It is the order in which the scratches were made that is most persuasive, and this impressed the scientists the most. There is very good evidence of the watch having had a full and continuous life well after the Maybrick scratches were made.

                Comment


                • Both the watch and diary seem to test older than a modern hoax time, circa 1990s. (Which incidentally came shortly after the 100 year anniversary of JtR in 1888.....)

                  The watch is old. The method of etching the watch seems old in that the implement used was probably brass. Paul, with years of experience working with watches, finds meaning, as do scientists, in the order in which the etchings were applied.

                  The etchings include the name J. Maybrick, I am Jack and the initials of the five canonical victims. (?) Plus some numbers left perhaps by jewelers who cleaned the watch, etc.

                  Maybe the watch can tell us a lot more than the diary. In 1888 the press and some investigators were giving JtR a tally of seven to nine victims. The idea of a canonical 5 is still debated.

                  It could be said the real JtR knew the right number, it was five, etc. If whoever marked the watch was not JtR, how and when did he (probably) decide on the C-5? Could the press coverage alone have created the idea of a C-5 in minds of 1888?

                  Emma Smith was barely a blip in news. Martha Tabram got some attention but she was stabbed to death.

                  Then the press began to build up steam; Polly, Annie, Double Event....OMG!....Mary Kelly! Then the press practically dropped the subject by December 1888. I am particularly frustrated with this because the story could have been kept alive longer with more information about Mary Kelly.

                  The attempted resurrection of JtR was weak, concerning the murders of Alice MacKenzie and Francis Coles.

                  So, would a news reader in 1888 or in the years closely following, have settled on the idea of a C-5 beginning with Polly and ending with MJK?

                  Since I don't believe James Maybrick wrote the diary or etched the watch, I believe someone else a long time ago created these artifacts. I do not believe the creator was JtR or that he (probably) had inside knowledge of the actual murders.

                  My point=> Can the limitation of the C-5 help point to a TIME when at least the watch might most likely have been scratched/etched?

                  (The newspapers of the time were intent on JtR having nine victims and it was stretched to eleven sometimes, even if they had to add Fairy Fey. Someone wanting maximum notoriety with a hoax would surely have gone for the highest number.)
                  The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X