|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2585
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:05 am: | 
|
This is a really interesting thread about nothing.
Just looking over it, i think it really tells us something about Ripperology
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 567
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Fair enough, Caz. Horses for courses and all that. What you say is valid, though 'X' is one of the few people I WOULD trust on almost anything Ripperological (that's a good word, ain't it?).
I honestly - genuinely - have no interest in the diary and should really never have posted on a thread involving it. I've only ever been interested in the known facts of the case in 1888 (bold print to indicate the central words, and not in any attempt to be biting or sarcastic - promise!) and it is well known I am not part of any of the 'theories' camps.
I shall bow out of this one entirely. 'X' always warned me about the dangerous maelstrom of the Diary Threads - and they were right!
Jenni - 'The Rippurowlogists have the threads that will not be interested for nothing'
PHILIP
x
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Well, I daresay what Philip was told was that AFI had found chloroacetamide in the ink, which - although it was discovered in the 19th century - was apparently not commercially produced until after the Second World War.
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/factfile.html
In fact Melvin Harris has said that it was first used in ink manufacture by Voller in 1974. Perhaps Caroline Morris can tell us whether she knows of it being used in ink at any date before that.
Chris Phillips
|
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 16
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Here's a start
Chloroacetamide
Product Name: Chloroacetamide
Synonyms: Chloro acetamide
Chemical Name: 2-Chloroacetamide
CAS Registry Number: [ 79-07-2 ]
Specifications: Assay - 99% min.
Activity: A herbicide.
Jules
|
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 17
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
Some more useless information
2-CHLOROACETAMIDE ICSC: 0640
IMPORTANT DATA
PHYSICAL STATE; APPEARANCE:
COLOURLESS TO YELLOW CRYSTALS, WITH CHARACTERISTIC ODOUR.
CHEMICAL DANGERS:
The substance decomposes on heating producing toxic fumes including nitrogen oxides and chlorine. Reacts with strong oxidants, strong reducing agents, strong acids and strong bases.
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS:
TLV not established. PDK not established.
ROUTES OF EXPOSURE:
The substance can be absorbed into the body by inhalation of its aerosol, through the skin and by ingestion.
INHALATION RISK:
No indication can be given about the rate in which a harmful concentration in the air is reached on evaporation of this substance at 20°C.
EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM EXPOSURE:
The substance irritates the eyes, the skin and the respiratory tract. The substance may cause effects on the heart, liver, spleen.
EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM OR REPEATED EXPOSURE:
Repeated or prolonged contact may cause skin sensitization.
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Boiling point (decomposes): 225°C
Melting point: 120°C
Solubility in water, g/100 ml at 20°C: 98
Vapour pressure, kPa at 20°C: 0.007
Relative vapour density (air = 1): 3.2
Riviting stuff eh.
Jules |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
Hi Philip,
'X' always warned me about the dangerous maelstrom of the Diary Threads...
Oh yes, I bet he did!
How nice it would be if one could simply write:
'I understand from someone I trust that the diary was found to be full of modern preservatives - end of story',
and not be challenged by a soul!
Well you can tell your pal that it doesn't work like that.
Hi Jenni,
What does it tell you about Ripperology?
That people don't sit around letting unsupported statements go unchallenged?
You of all people should appreciate the problem here, since the implication is that all your recent efforts to arrange for new tests were pointless, because AFI proved the diary modern back in 1994.
Hi Chris,
You know perfectly well all the problems that have been associated with the AFI identification. But I admire your ability to overcome the problems by the strength of your beliefs.
I prefer to wait for results we can all afford to put our faith in.
If AFI and Melvin did it for you, what's left to debate?
Love,
Caz
X |
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 18
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Last post I promise.
Chloroacetamide is an industrial preservative. Among its main fields of use are the preservation of aqueous dispersions and emulsions based on synthetic polymers, waxes, cellulose and protein derivatives for textile and paper industries. In the leather and tanning industry Chloroacetamide is employed to reduce mould formation on vegetable tanning liquors and on finished leather during drying and storage, as well as for the preservation of casein-based pigmented finishes.
Dilute organic acids and ammoniacal solutions do not impair the efficacy of Chloroacetamide. One special advantage of Chloroacetamide is its good water solubility and compatibility with anionic and nonionic surfactants, whose surface activity it does not block. Rather, the efficacy of Chloroacetamide is actually found to be enhanced in the presence of surfactants.
Jules |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
You know perfectly well all the problems that have been associated with the AFI identification.
I know perfectly well that Maybrickites have moved heaven and earth to try to discredit the AFI finding, for obvious reasons. I have read these attempts carefully, and I am not convinced.
Now. If you genuinely have any interest in the truth of the matter, please answer my question. Do you have any evidence that chloroacetamide was ever used in the manufacture of ink before 1974? Do you have any evidence that it was commercially produced before the Second World War?
Obviously this is an important point. You must have researched it for your book. Please let us know what you found.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on June 19, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Oh, and as you've seen fit to ridicule Philip's essentially accurate information, can you make it clear what your attitude to the AFI tests is?
Dr Simpson of AFI found that "chloroacetamide was indicated to be present in the ink used". You speak vaguely of "all the problems" with the AFI work.
For the sake of definiteness, can you actually tell us what you consider to be the single most serious problem with the AFI test?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Guys,
really a delightful illustration.
Why are we having this conversation anyway, because we all knew what Philip was talking about in terms of the chemical he meant from the start. it was hardly a shocker now was it come along be fair.
Caroline please darling don't let us drag up the latest tests - I'm clear what the point of those were even if you somehow are deluded as to the point.
Let's be honest the AFI tests are very important simply saying they are wrong doesnt mean that they are.
Lets get serious about this.
Jenni
ps Chris, this so counts!
"be just and fear not"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Ps just go back to the top of the thread. this is so off topic now, its funny!
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Maybrickites?
Alec Voller? Leeds? Eastaugh? Professor John C. Roberts? Mr. Poster?
Just who are you accusing here of being Maybrickites, on the grounds that their findings and/or views happen to question or conflict with the AFI result to which you are forced to cling?
You must have researched it for your book.
Why must we? Our book was essentially to tell the story of the investigation so far, through the words and actions of those most closely involved. Our own investigations took the form of trying to clarify certain aspects, by interviewing the people we thought might help to shed much needed light.
We simply reported the various scientific attempts to date the document. We did write to Dr Simpson of AFI, as you know, to ask about the figure she gave Shirley for the amount of chloroacetamide in the ink.
It appears that this figure cannot help us with the actual proportion of the preservative that should be present in the dried ink if it was an essential ingredient of manufacture.
Your claim that AFI proved the diary modern depends on this preservative being in the ink in the right quantity - and at least two positive results to that effect. It's your responsibility to prove your claim, not mine to disprove it. No sense in running before you can walk. The date when chloroacetamide was first used as an ink preservative will only matter, if it was used as one in the diary ink, and when you can prove it.
It isn't good science to rely on a single result, especially when it has been questioned by other reputable scientists, not just Maybrickites.
If you believe the 1994 AFI result can be fairly and 'essentially' accurately summed up by 'the ink was found to be full of modern preservatives', there's really no more to be said, is there?
But I'm genuinely surprised that you've spent so much time here on the boards arguing the toss, if it was all over for you in October 1994, even before Mike handed over the Sphere book.
Hi Jenni,
The point of the latest tests, for me, and presumably for Robert Smith too, was to see if the diary could be dated once and for all, after all the previous unsatisfactory and inconclusive tests.
I don't know what the point was for you, or for others. But if it was to try and prove the diary modern, a) that implies it hasn't already been proved modern and b) it didn't work, and more testing has already been called for, by modern hoax theorists as well as the unconvinced.
This tells its own story - nothing proved.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
So, in summary, you can't point to a single specific problem with the AFI measurements that would cast doubt on the validity of the conclusion that there was chloroacetamide in the ink.
And you know of no evidence that chloroacetamide was produced commercially before the Second World War, or used in the manufacture of ink before 1974.
Thank you!
Chris Phillips
PS If only you'd made it clear from the start that it was only the word "full" you were objecting to in the sentence "the ink was found to be full of modern preservatives", we could all have saved ourselves a lot of trouble, couldn't we?
(Message edited by cgp100 on June 20, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
Oh don't talk rot, Chris!
If all the experts had agreed that the AFI result did indeed demonstrate that the ink contained just one modern preservative, you would not need to be here now, still going to considerable trouble trying to make the evidence look stronger than we both know it actually is.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 20, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
The only "considerable trouble" I'm experiencing is getting you to answer simple, straightforward questions. Nothing new in that, of course.
It's easy for you to produce endless posts suggesting that the AFI tests were flawed. You tend to operate not quite on Hitler's principle of the big lie, but on the premise that if you repeat a silly little lie often enough, people will assume it's true.
So I'll ask again, what is your evidence:
(1) that AFI's finding that the ink contained chloroacetamide was wrong?
(2) that chloroacetamide was produced commercially before the Second World War, or used in the manufacture of ink before 1974?
And for heaven's sake don't say "well we wouldn't be discussing it if it wasn't in doubt", or start vaguely blathering on about "experts"!
As for the experts you produced in your last post, you know that what one of them, Voller, really said was that the AFI tests presented "almost a model picture of how an analysis should be conducted and reported", but that he found the botched Leeds report "profoundly disturbing".
And as for Professor Roberts, you can hardly have missed Melvin Harris's statement that he "also agrees that chloroacetamide, though around for many years, was not a commercial proposition until its manufacture after World War 2".
So where is your evidence?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
caroline,
you shouldn't make assumptions, why would my reasons be any different to Roberts.
Now I am leaving this thread as it is too hot to get into all of this!
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
This is getting surreal.
I wrote:
You of all people should appreciate the problem here [ie the claim that AFI found the diary ink full of modern preservatives back in 1994], since the implication is that all your recent efforts to arrange for new tests were pointless...
You responded, inexplicably rudely:
Caroline please darling don't let us drag up the latest tests - I'm clear what the point of those were even if you somehow are deluded as to the point.
Now it seems that you agree with me and Robert that the 'point' of new tests was to try and date the diary. So who are you calling deluded?
If your point was to try and date the diary, the clear implication is that, unlike Chris P, but like most of us who are still investigating, you are not certain that AFI proved the diary modern over ten years ago.
Hi Chris,
What lie have I been repeating, not quite as wickedly as Hitler, in your opinion?
You claimed that it was 'essentially accurate' to say that AFI found the diary ink 'full of modern preservatives' in 1994. That was the biggest load of misleading cobblers I've heard in a long time.
I'm still waiting for some decent evidence for your claim that the AFI test cannot be faulted. And the best you can do is to ask me for evidence to disprove your claim, and accuse me of being a liar? Well done.
You were in on all the recent discussions with Mr. Poster, Jeff Leahy, Sir Robert Anderson et al, concerning the whole chloroacetamide issue. Related posts are all over the diary threads like a rash. If you chose to ignore, or didn't follow all the arguments and counter-arguments first time round, go back there now and read them, so you are better informed before you post again on the subject. Why should I do the work for you, and repeat all the information here, only for you to ignore it all over again?
Let's look at your evidence:
Voller endorsed AFI's procedures, so we can trust their result.
As Mr. Poster explained, it's no good relying on Voller's endorsement of AFI's procedures, when it's obvious he didn't endorse the result.
A year after the AFI test, Voller looked at the diary and stated:
...the dyestuff...is definitely nigrosine. This means it is not a registrar's ink, it is definitely a manuscript ink. And since Diamine Manuscript ink is the only one of its kind for many a long year and this is definitely not Diamine Manuscript ink, it puts the penmanship some considerable distance in the past.
Voller believed the writing was 90+ years old and said he came with an open mind and if he thought it was a modern ink he would have said so.
You simply can't use Voller's opinion to support the claim that the ink was full of modern preservatives.
So what else is there, apart from blind faith that AFI got it right?
Professor Roberts, according to Melvin Harris, agreed that chloroacetamide was not a commercial proposition until after WW2. And Melvin Harris also claimed that it wasn't used in ink before 1974.
Hold your horses. Professor Roberts himself rubbished AFI's identification of chloroacetamide, calling it worthless.
Yet you ride roughshod over this opinion, to get to the claim, via Melvin Harris, about the earliest commercial use of chloracetamide, which you accept without question.
If Professor Roberts was right to rubbish AFI's identification of this preservative, it is of no consequence if he and Melvin were also right about its earliest use.
If you could provide hard scientific evidence (as opposed to hearsay and opinion, based on personal prejudice) that Professor Roberts and Alec Voller were both wrong not to endorse AFI's identification, it would then be worth exploring the claims that chloroacetamide wasn't used in ink before 1974, and on what authority those claims were based.
So if you happen to know Melvin's source of information, it may prove helpful later on. But for now, all that matters is your faith in AFI, and how it came to be so rock solid.
You will have to accept, however, that I'm not the only one, by a long chalk, who doesn't believe the chloroacetamide issue was resolved back in 1994 - four years before I arrived here to find the debate still raging.
Indeed, the claim made around here over the last three years, by one of the strongest modern hoax believers, was that new tests could at least resolve the chloroacetamide issue.
Which gives the lie to any claim that it was resolved long ago.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 8:58 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
So, to summarise:
(1) You can still produce no evidence whatsoever to contradict Melvin Harris's statement, backed up by Professor Roberts, that chloroacetamide was not produced commercially until after the Second World War, and Harris's further statement that it was first used in the manufacture of ink in 1974.
(2) But finally you have tried to provide some evidence to discredit the AFI tests.
(a) You were in on all the recent discussions with Mr. Poster, Jeff Leahy, Sir Robert Anderson et al, concerning the whole chloroacetamide issue.
Not only was I "in on" them, but as you know I replied in detail to the attempts by the unregistered contributor calling himself "Mr Poster" to rubbish the AFI tests.
The best he could do, in the end, was to suggest that the AFI test was not specific enough to be sure that the substance detected was chloroacetamide. In other words, he suggested that the ink could have contained another substance which exactly mimicked the behaviour of chloroacetamide.
(b) it's obvious he [Voller] didn't endorse the result
Your quotation from Voller doesn't so much as mention chloroacetamide, or the AFI tests. How on earth can you present it as evidence that he thought the AFI result was in error?
Why would anyone need to carry out a chemical analysis if it had been possible to tell whether chloroacetamide was in the ink just by looking at it?
(c) Professor Roberts himself rubbished AFI's identification of chloroacetamide, calling it worthless.
This sounds as though it might be more substantial, but what did Roberts actually say?
When you say "rubbished" it and called it "worthless", what do you actually mean? Do you mean:
(1) that he thought it was doubtful whether chloroacetamide was present in the ink, or
(2) that he thought the presence of chloroacetamide in the ink would be insufficient to establish its age?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on June 21, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2594
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Sorry Caz,
I didn't mean deluded, I apologise. I genuinely didn't mean it, god only knows what the word I am looking for is. But you get the general idea anyway I see. (Its been bugging me a while since I noticed I'd put it and it wasnt what I meant and here was me hoping no one would notice what an idiot I am, becaue I noticed I'd done it too late to change it!)
Anyway,
I am sure you can guess what I think about the AFI tests sine you have always proven yourself to be an intelligent lady. You can probably guess what I think about new tests too. Of course its hard to know what to think in situations like this one. but knowing who I think hoaxed that diary - and how they pulled it off, sure helps me to think AFI was right. That is probably a biased attitude, but we all trust scientists because of their academic qualifications etc, don't we?
You know when there is uncertainty (may I add, however much one personally may disagree with the uncertainty) the best way round such an issue is clarity. Clarification is the key!
I am sure you will realise clarity is my main priority. I wouldn't like to make an assumption either way about what new testing could tell us - I feel a lot more certain about tests I have organised, conducted by people I have met, than tests I know very little about conducted when I was 11 years old. I guess that is just my nature - call it a delusion of granduer if you so wish? I'm sorry if that seems odd to you that I would try for more tests when I think the evidence exists already. However much I disagree with people, like yourself, trying to dispute such evidence, in so doing you have none the less amde it disputed. whereas a test I know more about I would be in a better positon to defend. I hope that made sense? But I didn't think this whole issue had anything to do with the inner workings of my mind or my motivations and reasoning. I thought it was more about clarifying the age of the document for the sake of showing its merits (or infact lack thereof). For the sake of a dead mans reputation. We talk a lot on these boards about this, maybe mainly because we are bored with little else to do, waiting for exam results and the like. Clearly their is still a lot of things that can be done to clarify the situation.
People trying to undermine tests (on all sides) is not helpful for clarity. In fact clarity is a good word to describe what I feel new testing could give us.
Clearly I would have accepted being proved wrong had science clarified that to me. But clearly also I did not find that a likely soultion. At the end of the day 12 years is a long time (when I think about it - it's more than half my age! Lots can happen in 12 years trust me on that! At the end of the day, I'm sure the situation will be clarified by the time I'm thirty, and thats in writing, so hey, it must be right!)
All in all it is important to remember, time reveals all!
Now I am off to tie my hands behind my back to prevent any further posts!
Jenni
ps Chris, honestly - I'm serious!
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Thanks for modifying your tone somewhat. We are not at war here, we are just disagreeing about the strength of the evidence.
Your quotation from Voller doesn't so much as mention chloroacetamide, or the AFI tests. How on earth can you present it as evidence that he thought the AFI result was in error?
Er, simple.
Your claim is that AFI, in 1994, found a preservative in the diary ink that Melvin Harris claims was not used in ink prior to 1974.
Alec Voller, a year later in 1995, stated his belief that the writing was much older than that - 90+ years old, in fact.
I'd say that was pretty much the same as believing that AFI's result must have been in error - unless Voller wouldn't agree with Melvin, and thinks chloroacetamide could have been in an ink 90+ years old. Take your pick.
And I'm sure we've already been over what Professor Roberts thought of AFI's work. But here are the salient points, from his report dated October 23, 1995:
The gas chromatographic evidence is unsatisfactory for several reasons. Firstly, and most damaging, is the fact that the criterion used for identification of the 2-chloracetamide peak in the chromatogram was its retention time on the column (coupled with a spiking experiment). Although this is suggestive of 2-chloracetamide, it is not adequate in itself for a categorical identification. The correct procedure would be to use gas chromatography in conjunction with mass spectrometry. This is a well established technique for such work and should have been used. The identification is more or less worthless without it.
(The second reason was to do with the fact that the 2-chloracetamide, if it is in fact present, could equally have come from the paper as the ink, because AFI tested dots of ink on paper, and didn't appear to have discriminated between the two materials. Since this report, as you know, Shirley asked Dr Simpson to test the paper alone for chloroacetamide, and the result was negative.)
Thirdly there is disagreement in results between two laboratories [AFI and Leeds]. The experiments should be repeated (but using GC mass spectrometry) with the correct controls.
The results as they stand do not really prove anything.
The problem, for me, has always been that I am simply not qualified to distinguish between the various scientific experts, and to guess which ones I should be putting my trust in.
Can you say, hand on heart, that you don't trust AFI's result more because it fits with your beliefs, than because it is, in your honest opinion, scientifically sound?
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
But caroline, let me ask you something, was Voller aware of the claim of the previous year by AFI? if he was aware was he in any position to dispute it since I thought he only gave a visual examination?
Anyway if they DO disagree - how can we laymen tell which one is right?
I do not think i am very aware of Dr Roberts report. Is there a published transcript of it anywhere?
If you are suggesting the tests should be repeated Caz, then there's an idea. is that what you are suggesting?
Jenni
ps am rereading your book - it's very enlightening
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
It's me who should apologise - I should have known you would never set out to offend anyone. It just came across a bit harsh, considering we are both only seeking clarification, in our own ways! 
...knowing who I think hoaxed that diary - and how they pulled it off, sure helps me to think AFI was right.
Who do you think hoaxed it then, and how did they 'pull it off'? I'd love to know, because I thought you weren't particularly smitten with the Mike Barrett theory. What evidence have you got against your hoaxer(s) that Keith, Shirley and Robert have all missed?
That is probably a biased attitude, but we all trust scientists because of their academic qualifications etc, don't we?
But the scientists who have examined the diary and watch have given us conflicting results and opinions. You can't trust them all, can you?
I need scrupulously objective, well qualified opinions to help me sort the wheat from the chaff.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Our posts crossed.
Anyway if they DO disagree - how can we laymen tell which one is right?
Obviously Voller's opinion clashes directly with the AFI result - if chloroacetamide could not have been in an ink 90+ years old. But you make the point for me. How can we laymen tell which one is right?
That's why I am asking Chris why he thinks AFI was necessarily right, and Voller necessarily wrong - from a scientific point of view, rather than a modern hoax believer's point of view.
If you would like to see Professor [not a mere Dr] Roberts's entire report published, I guess you would have to ask permission. You could contact him via UMIST (is it still called that?).
If new tests could sort out once and for all whether or not the ink contained a provably modern preservative, that would be great. What we need from Chris is the source of Melvin's information that chloroacetamide has only been used in ink since 1974. We know that Dr Baxendale believed nigrosine had only been used in ink since the 1940s; it was actually in general use in writing inks by the 1870s.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
As Jenni says, it's really too hot for this, so I'll be very brief.
Voller
I'll just say this:
(1) It is not possible to tell whether ink contains chloroacetamide by looking at it with the naked eye, as Voller did.
(2) It is not possible to tell how old ink is by looking at it with the naked eye. Voller effectively admitted this himself later when he said that Nick Warren's test letter resembled the diary. That test letter was only six years old when he saw it. I've pointed this out repeatedly to you in the past few weeks.
You can offer no evidence that Voller intended any criticism of AFI by his comments. If he had done, it would clearly have been baseless.
Anyone can see what Voller actually said about the relative merits of the AFI and the Leeds tests by looking here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=130905#POST130905
Roberts
Thank you for posting these extracts.
So what he actually said was that the AFI tests suggested that the ink contained chloroacetamide, but could not categorically establish it.
(This is because of the possibility I have already mentioned - that by coincidence the ink contained some other substance that exactly mimicked the behaviour of chloroacetamide.)
There's no way that this in any way suggests that the ink does not contain chloroacetamide. The most it implies is that the AFI finding requires confirmation.
As for AFI versus Leeds, I should like to know more about the Leeds report. Is it in the public domain?
But what I do know is this:
(1) They initially thought they had found chloroacetamide, but later decided that they hadn't, and that they must have contaminated their equipment.
(2) They failed to detect not only chloroacetamide, but also sodium, despite the fact that Eastaugh had previously detected sodium in the ink.
(3) According to Voller, "calibration of the instrument appears to have been very cursory and its ability to detect tiny traces of chloracetamide assumed rather than properly established".
If the final statement by Voller is correct, it obviously renders the failure to detect chloroacetamide meaningless.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Hey Caroline,
In situations where the waters have been muddied as much as they have around this diary it helps to think clearly. We must be careful not to value any scientists’ evidence more highly because it agrees with our own opinion.
As I mentioned and asked before was Voller asked about the AFI findings or told about them? Was he aware that their findings contradicted his own opinion? Even if he was he did not conduct the same kind of chemical analysis, his opinion was based on a visual examination.
Voller did not directly say he disagreed with AFI, you cannot therefore imply otherwise.
As for Roberts, I would very much like to see his report, if you know where he works now (UMIST I think is now part of the University of Manchester) I would very much like to contact him to ask. Or indeed maybe someone like Keith or Shirley has a copy of the report they can send to me? You know my postal address after all!
No - I won't be saying what I think in that regard to anyone who doesn't already know, until I have got the evidence in my possession. Because I am not that hypocritical
So you are suggesting a reanalysis of the ink?
I think that is a very interesting idea, worthy of perusal...
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Voller effectively admitted this himself later when he said that Nick Warren's test letter resembled the diary.
Now you know that wasn't exactly what Voller said. He simply conceded that certain aspects of the ink's appearance were 'similar' - hardly the same as changing his opinion about the diary's age, or about the ink 'definitely not' being Diamine Manuscript ink. Other aspects may have remained totally dissimilar, for all you know.
Anyone can see what Voller actually said about the relative merits of the AFI and the Leeds tests...
Yes, but when did he say it? Before or after his own visual examination of the diary? And what does it prove - that AFI's procedures could not have produced a false result under any circumstances, or that Leeds could not possibly have been correct, despite any criticism of their methods?
As I said, I need scrupulously objective, well qualified opinions to help me determine whether AFI did in fact find a provably modern preservative in the same ink that Voller declared to be 90+ years old.
Any ideas where Melvin Harris got his information about the history of modern inks? You'll need to know if you are basing your claims on yet more claims.
You still have to demonstrate that a) AFI found enough chloroacetamide to have been used in the ink as a preservative, and b) chloroacetamide was never put in any inks before 1974, despite the fact that it was known about well before 1888.
Hi Jenni,
We must be careful not to value any scientists’ evidence more highly because it agrees with our own opinion.
Absolutely right. And you and Chris must also be careful not to dismiss any scientific opinion that challenges your opinions.
That's why I have been asking Chris to explain exactly why he is 100% certain that the diary ink contains a modern preservative, and 100% certain that Leeds and Voller got it so wrong.
I didn't claim that Voller commented on AFI's result; I don't know either way. What I do know is that his opinions, based on his visual examination, could hardly have conflicted more strongly with the idea that AFI found a post-1974 preservative in the ink, and could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be seen as an endorsement (knowingly or unknowingly) of AFI's result - despite the written endorsement of AFI's procedures.
I find it hard to imagine that Voller would not have known about the 1994 results of AFI and Leeds, by October 1995, when he was asked to look at the diary. But it shouldn't matter either way, because a professional examiner should not let previous results influence their own findings.
Actually, if Voller did know what AFI found, and what Leeds didn't find, and had approved of the former's procedures, but not the latter's, before seeing the document for himself, he nevertheless concluded that the ink was not modern - which makes his opinion all the more objective. I would be very interested in knowing what his opinion would be if he looked at the writing again today.
I'll email you about Professor Roberts's report.
As I said, of course it would be good for everyone to know for certain what the ink contains and what it doesn't contain. Then people could start working on whether anything it does contain is provably modern, and was there when ink first met paper.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Oh dear. We seem to be back to typical "Maybrick mode".
Can I just cut through all this waffle by repeating, in case you missed it?
It is not possible to tell whether ink contains chloroacetamide by looking at it with the naked eye, as Voller did.
That means that a visual examination can't be evidence against the presence of chloroacetamide.
I don't think we're achieving anything, if this is your best evidence against the AFI findings.
But thanks for reminding me how pointless it is to try to have a rational discussion with you.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2599
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
thanks for the email Caz,
CHeers
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Well, if typical "Maybrick mode" means you making claims, and me challenging you to support them, then I'm all for it.
But it always ends the same way - with you expecting me to provide the evidence against your claims, and resorting to insult when you run out of arguments.
I never claimed that Voller could tell there was no chloroacetamide in the ink. So what's the point of implying otherwise?
Look, it's really very simple. Voller recognised that the diary was written in a manuscript ink, but said it was definitely not Diamine Manuscript ink, which he said was the only one of its kind for many a long year.
Maybe Voller is not experienced enough to recognise a manuscript ink when he sees it; maybe he is experienced enough, but was wrong about Diamine being the only one manufactured in recent years; maybe he didn't recognise his own ink when he saw it.
But maybe Voller was spot on, and maybe he knows his manuscript inks like the back of his hand. Maybe that's why he was able to recognise certain similarities between the Diary manuscript ink and the sample Nick Warren wrote in Diamine Manuscript ink - both 'of a kind', but easily distinguished by an expert?
Your claim is that the diary ink is of recent manufacture because it contains a modern preservative, which AFI detected doing its job in the ink. You have yet to support it.
But you seem to have no inkling where Melvin Harris got his 1974 date from, and my guess is that if he had said 1964 or 1984, you'd have been equally convinced, without bothering to ask how he knew.
And it's quite ironic that on the one hand you rely on Voller's endorsement of AFI's procedures, yet on the other you don't trust him to recognise his own manuscript ink or manuscript inks in general.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
But it always ends the same way - with you expecting me to provide the evidence against your claims, and resorting to insult when you run out of arguments.
As a matter of fact, it always ends up with you telling blatant lies about what other people have said to cover up the fact that you can't back up your own assertions.
I am not "relying" on Voller at all. You were the one who raised Voller in the first place, and the only reason we're discussing him is that you implied he had tried to discredit the AFI finding. I quoted his opinion of the AFI test only to show how ridiculous your claim was.
In fact, you have shown us not one shred of evidence that Voller tried to discredit the AFI tests.
As for what "I claim", all I have said is simply that Philip Hutchinson's information was essentially accurate. You're well aware of the evidence for it. On the modernity of chloroacetamide, you have not only Harris's statement (as you pretend), but Roberts's as well.
If you disagree with that evidence - or pretend to do so - that's up to you. But if you disagree with it without being able to show a shred of credible evidence to the contrary, then we can only wonder about your real reasons for doing so.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
I don't think Chris was insulting you.
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
...you implied he had tried to discredit the AFI finding.
No I didn't - I have explained several times now why Voller's opinions were obviously not a glowing endorsement (knowingly or unknowingly) of AFI's alleged 'modern' result.
I never once claimed that Voller's intention was to discredit AFI's result. I even posted the fact that Voller said he came with an open mind to examine the writing and if he thought the ink was modern he'd have said so. How can you claim to interpret that as 'trying' to discredit a previous result? I won't accuse you of telling blatant lies, however; I prefer to think you were just not reading closely enough.
But I wasn't lying either, Chris - I genuinely thought you were trying to use Voller's endorsement of AFI's procedures to support AFI's result. I'm glad to hear you weren't doing that - not directly at least.
Can I assume then, that you were using Voller's endorsement solely to undermine his stated belief that the diary was 90+ years old when he looked at the writing in 1995?
In other words, if you could discredit Voller, that would in itself help your claim regarding AFI?
Am I getting warmer now?
Summing up, you first had to show that AFI correctly identified chloroacetamide, busily preserving the diary ink. Professor Roberts certainly didn't endorse AFI's result (and remember, you just told me you were not relying on Voller's endorsement of their procedures). So far so bad.
If you had succeeded in overcoming Professor Roberts's concerns with new evidence, you would then have needed to do your own research to confirm that chloroacetamide could not have found its way into an ink manufactured before 1974.
Once again, you made the claim - I didn't have to disprove it. You had to prove it and you failed. I still don't know what your evidence is that AFI must have got it right. No big deal. On to the next attempt to prove the thing modern I guess.
Hi Jenni,
So you wouldn't call it insulting if someone told you it was pointless to try and have a rational conversation with you, and regularly accused you of telling lies?
It's easy when it's not aimed at you.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
so what would you suggest the way forward was Caz, on all fronts?
"be just and fear not"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
...you implied he had tried to discredit the AFI finding.
No I didn't
Well, just in case you've really forgotten, let me remind you.
I wrote on 19 June:
I know perfectly well that Maybrickites have moved heaven and earth to try to discredit the AFI finding, for obvious reasons.
You replied the next day:
Maybrickites?
Alec Voller? Leeds? Eastaugh? Professor John C. Roberts? Mr. Poster?
If that wasn't meant to imply that Voller was among those who had tried to discredit the AFI results, you need to go back to school for some lessons in basic English.
Now, in case I wasn't clear enough last time - arguing with compulsive liars is one of the more pointless things in life, in my opinion. The discussion's closed as far as I'm concerned.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1907
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 5:47 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Well, I would like to hear about any enterprise that could date the diary beyond all doubt, as I'm sure you would too. I understand the ongoing investigation is going swimmingly, by the way.
I just find it frustrating that the claim made by Chris Phillips, that AFI proved the diary modern back in 1994, implies that everyone's efforts during the last ten years (including his own, presumably) have been an absolutely pointless waste of time, money and effort.
Chris takes everything I write way too literally, just so he can call me a compulsive liar and insult my use of English, and so avoid actually addressing all the well-known, well-trodden and well-old doubts over the chloracetamide issue. It's the oldest trick in the book to use insult when backed into a corner. But it is no substitute for a good argument, and evidence of a poor one. Civility should be a doddle if a claim has bottle.
Chris's words were: Maybrickites have moved heaven and earth to try to discredit the AFI finding, for obvious reasons.
I didn't use those words back at Chris, when referring to the various bodies whose opinions and/or results conflict with AFI's result. It was obvious what I meant - that no Maybrickite needed to move heaven and earth to try to discredit [Chris's words and Chris's opinion - never mine] AFI's result, because the findings of those cited are more than enough to leave some justifiable doubt in the mind of anyone but the most entrenched modern hoax believer.
Have a great weekend.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on July 01, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
would that be the ongoing investigation in liverpool and London?
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1908
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:05 am: |
|
Oooh Chris, naughty naughty. I just checked back to that post you quoted me from:
Maybrickites?
Alec Voller? Leeds? Eastaugh? Professor John C. Roberts? Mr. Poster?
Talk about selective quoting, just so you could call me a liar again! What a fraud.
I actually wrote immediately afterwards:
Just who are you accusing here of being Maybrickites, on the grounds that their findings and/or views happen to question or conflict with the AFI result to which you are forced to cling?
That makes it crystal clear that I wasn't implying that anyone had tried to discredit AFI's result - the concept was all in your mind to start with, and it ended there.
Cheats never prosper.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Chris takes everything I write way too literally ... It was obvious what I meant
Yeah, yeah, yeah ...
Anyway, this "ongoing investigation". I'm getting more interested in it (assuming it extends beyond wilfully misunderstanding the contents of the Oxford English Dictionary).
It's been "ongoing" for some time, hasn't it? Must be costing someone an absolute bomb. So the question is, who's willing to put all that money into further investigation of an obvious fake, and what do they hope to get out of it?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Who really cares? No one i would venture a guess at. Apart from us three!!!
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
People who obviously don't think AFI's result conclusively proved the diary modern, I should think. So I'm not alone in having doubts.
I can't think why you'd be interested in an ongoing investigation that you believe was over in 1994.
I'm afraid I didn't misunderstand what the OED is telling us - that the word 'inclination' could be used in dialect to mean 'inkling', just as the diarist used it.
But if this poses such a problem for you, that you are forced to argue otherwise, on two threads, even though you claimed the thing was proved modern over ten years ago, it just makes my discovery as exciting for me as it is obviously disturbing for you.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on July 01, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
Nevermind that Caz. tell us more about this investigtion?Who is investigating? Who is paying? what do they hope to achieve?
when will we see the fruits of their labour?
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Well, from the heated debates all over the diary threads over the years, and the fact that people are still spending time, money and effort on the investigation, I would think there are many more than just we three who will care about the outcome.
Look, we've been over this before. No details will become available until everything has been verified and documented. I just wanted to reassure you that the investigation is progressing.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on July 01, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2616
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
As maybe,
tell me more about the investigation.
Don't be such a tease!!
"be just and fear not"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Hmmm. Do I detect a little reticence about the "ongoing investigation"?
Come along now, you're the one who keeps raising it, after all.
Who are these "people" who are putting the money up?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Unless of course the investigation doesn't really exist?
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
I refer the honourable lady and gent to my previous post - edited as you were clamouring for more news.
I hope that, like me, you are both looking forward to the time when all may be revealed.
Jenni, you are exasperating! Are you calling me a liar now? And Keith Skinner too, who suggested the post where I initially informed everyone about the ongoing investigation in London and Liverpool?
You are also in touch with Robert Smith. He recently had Dr. Platt examine the diary on your advice, as part of the ongoing investigation!
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on July 01, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2618
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Caroline,
don't worry
- i am sure one day very soon the real truth will be known
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I refer the honourable lady and gent to my previous post - edited as you were clamouring for more news.
No, no, you misunderstand.
I'm not so much interested in what the investigation will discover, as in who is footing the bill, and why.
I understand the findings themselves may be "commercially sensitive", but why does there need to be any secrecy about who's behind the project?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1913
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Actually, this may come as a terrible shock to you, but I don't much care what you are interested in, and what you think you are entitled to know.
First you call me a compulsive liar; then you tell me I don't know how to use a dictionary; and then you expect me to satisfy your curiosity with information you wouldn't accept from me anyway.
Find yourself another mug to bully.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Enough of this already.
i don't get the stuff about inclination, but geez, lets not worry about it.
As for Chris calling you a compulsive liar, i must confess i missed that. maybe i have a selective memory?
Love
Jenni
xxx
(Message edited by jdpegg on July 01, 2005)
"be just and fear not"
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
