|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 9:07 am: | 
|
And once again I hear the thud of a name being dropped.
But fortunately for us, no actual reading or citations or argument accompanies it. So we needn't discuss it. When and if the old hoax theory ever appears in its full and careful and detailed and thorough form somewhere, accounting for all the textual difficulties in the same sort of simple and direct way that the comprehensive dissertations on the Casebook site account for them via a modern hoaxer, we can discuss such a theory. Until then, a name is just a name.
And it should be noted here that the very same Keith Skinner has actually written this to me concerning the diary: "I believe it to be a fake because it is not written in the authenticated handwriting of James Maybrick."
Gee, isn't that what we've just been saying?
-John (who can drop a name with the best of 'em) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
I ask because Keith Skinner evidently doesn't know of any proven anachronisms in the text, otherwise he wouldn't still be investigating the b..... thing.
This is where I find Caroline Morris's posts so bewildering.
John has only just posted the quotation from Keith Skinner indicating he believes the diary is a fake (just as John does, just as I do, and just as Caroline Morris herself has said she did in the past).
She knows everyone reading these boards regularly will be aware of this, and she could be sure that even if someone read her post who hadn't seen John's post, it would pretty quickly be pointed out to her.
So what on earth was the point of making that obviously misleading statement, other than perhaps to make herself look dishonest - and stupid with it?
Truly, if anyone's tempted to argue for the diary's authenticity by saying "Why on earth would a forger have been so stupid as to ...?", they should take a look at the way people behave on these boards!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on February 20, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Caroline is going to tell you that she is only saying Keith can't verify any actual "anachronisms in the text," which means that even though he believes the book's a fake and not in the handwriting of the real James, it might still be a hoax written a long time ago, perhaps even contemporary with the period in question.
Of course, since Keith and everyone else so far seems unable to come up with a plausible explanation for lines like "tin matchbox empty" and since neither she nor anyone else has found a Poste House anywhere in Liverpool before the 1960s and since no one has ever bothered to sit down and detail exactly how an old hoax theory would account for these and all the other textual difficulties, there's nothing really to talk about concerning this flight of fancy. The old hoax theory doesn't actually exist. It's just a figment so far, that Caroline occasionally drops as the proper name "Keith Skinner," hoping that will have some effect. But until someone actually bothers to write down the ideas and scenarios and carefully explain how all these lines could have gotten there under this account, as has already been admirably and quite clearly and thoroughly done for the modern hoax alternative by Melvin Harris in a series of dissertations on the Casebook website, there is no real old hoax theory.
So she'll come here and quibble about only referring to the phrase "anachronisms in the text" and not trying to imply that Keith thought the diary might be real or use his name in any misleading way and tell us that she was not in any way referring to the discussion that was currently taking place about the handwriting and whether it indicated (since it is clearly not the real James's) that he obviously did not write this book.
Unfortunately, since this particular dropping of the name was not accompanied by any actual content or argument or citation, it really served little or no useful purpose.
Except the obvious rhetorical one.
Seeing the future,
--John
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 446
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Caz,
So many textual anachronisms? Are you just assuming this is the case because John Omlor has said it a million times?
No, I am quite capable of thinking for myself, thank you. In fact, while not really germane here I will briefly repeat my history with the Diary. I read it as soon as it was published and was not persuaded. When I was a "card-carrying" historian I had occasion to read quite a few holographic diaries and journals and the "Maybrick Diary" simply did not ring true. A very subjective and unscientific assessment, of course, but my own.
After I stumbled upon the Boards I reread the Diary several times and was struck not only by points previously raised by doubters, but I found a couple of others as well. I don't bother to mention them because they, too, are capable of "explanation" with the addition of a few more Ptolemaic epicycles.
Frankly, I find the whole Diary argument to be akin to one of those incredibly talky 1920s English country home detective novels. You know, where one after another elaborate, contrived theory is spun and then undone by a single simple fact. And in the end it is determined that the butler -- who hated the murdered man, had threatened him frequently and was found standing over his still warm body with a smoking gun -- really did do it.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1971
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Caz,
would you like the list of textual difficulties in the diary? is that what you are after?
I could list it? in fact i will,
#1 tin match box empty.
#2 poste house
#3 mrs hammersmith
#4 left them on the table
#5 one ring ...two farthings
#6 if michael/verse
#7 an intial
#8 key
#9 i took nothing with me
#10 o costly...
#11 damn it...
any that ive missed im sorry.
and no you are correct in thinking i dont think all of them point to it being modern and fake, but a significant enough amount point to that. and they all point to it being fake. then again you knew that already.
Please, please, please - there is such a thing as name dropping!!
i dont know what Keith Skinner thinks because ive neever asked him. i don't know why he investigates the diary.
on the one hand your saying we shouldnt just believe John and on th other we should just believe whatever Keith Skinner thinks according to you. well sorry you cant have it both ways and frankly i think your first idea about making ones own mind up is much better.
for someone with no position you write a lot of stuff!
but i dont care what your position is because i am making my own mind up!
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 4:46 am: |
|
Hi John,
And once again I hear the thud of a name being dropped.
You should be grateful this one is dropped into the same sentence as yours then.  It shows that I am constantly taking your opinion into account.
Hi Chris P,
Apples and oranges.
What has Keith's opinion that the handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's authenticated hand got to do with the subject of textual anachronisms?
I didn't bring up the subject here about 'so many textual anachronisms'. Am I not allowed to challenge a statement that appears like fact, on the grounds that my co-author, Keith Skinner, doesn't appear to agree with it, and therefore it may be more opinion than fact?
Hi Don,
Thanks for that. I think you've made my point for me:
A very subjective and unscientific assessment, of course, but my own.
Taking a 'position' generally implies an acknowledgement that the truth has yet to be established.
Now then, can anyone show me where Keith has acknowledged even one textual anachronism (we only need the one - not 'so many')?
Hi Jenni,
Thanks for the list, but I was just asking about textual anachronisms - ie anything that proves beyond doubt that the diary could not have been written at the right time. None of us would be here now if there was one. John would not have written trillions of unnecessary words on other totally irrelevant issues; Melvin would not have needed to don his deerstalker and go hunting for forgers among the Barretts and the Johnsons and their associates.
And it would be really helpful if you could make more of an effort to grasp what I actually write.
You wrote:
on the one hand your saying we shouldnt just believe John and on th other we should just believe whatever Keith Skinner thinks according to you. well sorry you cant have it both ways and frankly i think your first idea about making ones own mind up is much better.
What is it that you failed to understand by:
Hmmmm, a dilemma. Which unbiased expert opinion should I trust? Omlor's or Skinner's?
That's why I trust neither right now, and instead prefer to keep looking and learning.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 21, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 5:08 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Now then, can anyone show me where Keith has acknowledged even one textual anachronism (we only need the one - not 'so many')?
No - the way it works is that if you make a statement, you have to back it up. You haven't "won" the game if nobody can disprove it.
Over and over again, you seem to have a real problem with basic logic like this:
"You haven't disproved this" isn't equivalent to "I have proved it".
I think you should clarify what you're claiming about Keith Skinner out of fairness to him, if nothing else.
Thanks to John, we know Keith Skinner thinks the diary is a fake.
Now - do you know he doesn't think there are any anachronisms in the diary, or are you guessing that, based on the fact that he is still "investigating the b..... thing".
And when you wrote last month:
"He [Skinner] is doing things the right and responsible way by trying to prove his own opinion wrong."
- what opinion were you referring to then?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
Chris,
See, I told you exactly what Caroline would say to you, and here she is, saying it.
Honestly, I could now write each post in each of these Diary threads by each of us each day all by myself and not be far off.
This is a bad sign.
--John
PS: In case anyone is interested, I don't particularly care what Keith thinks is or is not anachronistic in the diary. Sine he is, so far, apparently unable or unwilling to write down exactly what he thinks happened or to account in writing for any of the troublesome lines in the diary (like the tin matchbox line, for instance) that are so neatly explained in careful and precise detail by Melvin Harris on the dissertations pages of the Casebook website, there is no point in discussing Keith's name. One can discuss ideas. Discussing a name without any accompanying work to read is just silly. And of course so is dropping the name purely for rhetorical effect. When and if the work is ever done and an old hoax theory actually appears, then we can take it seriously. Until then, it doesn't really exist except as a vague dream. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
Caroline,
Something you wrote has genuinely confused me.
Why would proving "beyond doubt that the diary could not have been written at the right time" result in Melvin not needing "to don his deerstalker and go hunting for forgers among the Barretts and the Johnsons and their associates."
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't absolute proof that the diary could not have been written in 1888 make it more likely that people would then want to investigate the people who brought it forward, since there would be no possible claim that it could be authentic or even written in the proper century?
Your logic here seems completely inexplicable. Or maybe I just have misread your grammar.
Please explain.
--John
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
Hello
Sorry Jennifer Pegg, I dont have emotions: Im a product of the MTV generation so my next piece of text is written in monotone!
This is my very favorite argument of them all. I like it even better than the purely fanciful MPD argument. Why? Because it's so perfectly and illustratively illogical.
Basically, this argument amounts to saying, "the fact that the handwriting in the diary looks nothing at all like the real James Maybrick's handwriting is evidence that the real James Maybrick wrote it."
Imagine how far we must have come from the world of logic and rational thought, how deep we must have ventured into the heart of Diary World darkness to get to a place where this argument is actually offered.
In the end, it's not written in his handwriting and therefore he probably wrote it.
It's just beautiful.
It is, of course, pure and utter nonsense.
Now thats not really true. What is really being said is that the different handwriting is no reason to discount it. Not that Maybrick wrote it. If anything, it is perfectly and illustratively illogical to extrapolate that statement to an assertion that Maybrick wrote it. I have not yet even said that I think he wrote it. But as evidence goes, the difference is not enough to say he didnt. Handwriting is not DNA. The other point I remember reading was that the "cunning" (also termed "amateurish" and "clumsy" at other times of convenience) forger could have solved his whole problem by just writing a Maybrick document or letter in the diary hand and that would be enough to call into question the handwriting disparity.I dont believe the MPD thing, nor do I fully swallow Lars anti-depressant experience, but I am not convinced that in an age when handwriting was an art, that one person could not have two styles.
However, the above response is an intersting example of the way a responder can take a statement, "expand" it a little (the "basically this arguement.." bit) beyond what was actually said, and place it in the crosshairs for a full lambasting. An interesting technique and one that is very common in Ripperology! The original statement queried the technique of the forger in the mismatched handwriting - did not say that Maybrick must have written it. It reminds me of my junior lecturing days when I would use similar techniques to tear student arguements apart until a wiser man pointed out that I was not tearing their theories apart, I was twisting their theories into something I could attack and then inflating my ego by ridiculing something that had not been said.
Anyway, the arguments used by pro-diarists to defend the diary are the same ones used by everyone else to defend their own pet suspect so: Hello Pot, this is kettle calling!"
To Chris Phillips: Im sorry. I didnt mean to come across as hysterical. The fact remains: our science is judged by peer reviewed publication in the journals. The ASC and RSC are deemed august as they publish and review literature than can have ramifications for many people and businesses. I have now been searching for a nearly three days and can find no retraction, modification or otherwsie regarding the IM technique published, where it should be, in the journals. Therfore I assume the technique is still on the table as a valid method. At least I will think so until someone shows me a peer reviewed paper countering it in one of the normal journals. Regarding bad science: some bad science does get through (but to assume this must be one is disparaging a mans reputation and being convenient to your own theories). More bad science is displayed in forums such as these than in journals.
Taking Chris's suggested objective view: there is still not enough evidence to decide either way if the diary is real or not. That is proved by the fact that there is not one argument either way that cannot or is not countered by the opposition. Get some money, the diary and a team of experts including scientists and wait until they reach consensus, which they will eventually. Until then, the argument over the diary is essentially going nowhere.
The best opinion I have read so far is Mr Soudens: "it just feels wrong". Honest and to the point without thrashing out the same old arguments which only serve to distract effort and muddy the waters.
Alan Moore was not so far off the mark: the Ripper and now the Diary are lost in the trampling of people chasing minute particles that dont prove anything.
And, not wishing to stir up anything more: what is coterie?
And: who has written the best objective critique of the diary, discounting point for point all the assertions of the original book about it? Before I am accused of being hysterical or something,thats not a rhetorical question, I just want to read it.
And what of this evidence I read of in the original book on the diary that Barrets wife may have been a Maybrick or something?
And please dont bite my head off. Im only asking. These forums seem to get very nasty sometimes.
And I would love to register as a regular guest but of the many forums I am in, this is the first where I had to send in a form.
Mr Poster |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
It should be remembered that Keith Skinner is hardly a disinterested party. He has been chief diary researcher for many years and gets paid for this work. As such he really shouldn't be quoted as a reference for pro diary arguments here as he is not an independent third party. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Hi John,
You ask me:
Why would proving "beyond doubt that the diary could not have been written at the right time" result in Melvin not needing "to don his deerstalker and go hunting for forgers among the Barretts and the Johnsons and their associates."
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't absolute proof that the diary could not have been written in 1888 make it more likely that people would then want to investigate the people who brought it forward, since there would be no possible claim that it could be authentic or even written in the proper century?
I think I see your point. But I recall that Melvin argued it was not desirable to expose the forgers, and not necessary since the diary and watch were obviously modern fakes. And in the end, he had to be content with saying that the evidence in his possession was good enough for him. So no absolute proof of anything was delivered to the great unwashed. His case remains but a theory waiting to be proved or torn down.
Melvin never did reveal the name(s) of the person(s) he claimed to know actually composed/penned the diary, either publicly, or privately to Shirley or Keith. And since he didn't believe either of the Barretts wrote it, and furiously denied ever saying that Citizen Kane was "the OBVIOUS forger", a dead end was reached there too.
I brought Keith's name into this, not for rhetorical effect (sorry about that), but for the selfish reason that I simply cannot ignore his belief that the diary is not a late 20th century document, any more than I can ignore your telling me that the ink was barely dry in 1992.
I know you tend to get carried away by the concept of Diaryworld and its inmates, but Keith doesn't exist in a vacuum somewhere just because you don't see him posting here. He is real, I value his opinions (all of them), even if you don't (or at least only the one about the handwriting), and I do have to take them into account when reading yours. I can see why you might resent the intrusion of his spectre into your otherwise cosy Diaryworld, but I won't apologise for bringing him (it) with me, when I see people making misleading claims about 'so many textual anachronisms' when only one was needed to kill the diary stone dead before it was even published.
I acknowledge what you say about no case being made for the diary being an old document. But why are you so afraid of readers being reminded that not everyone is convinced by the case for the diary (and therefore the watch) being modern?
Questioning aspects of the modern hoax theory does not come with a requirement to make a case for the diary being old. It doesn't come with a requirement to believe that the diary is old. It doesn't come with a requirent to have any beliefs at all. It comes with the simple requirement of having an enquiring mind.
And if I am to be criticised for that (or compared again with OJ looking for the real killers), I shall set the very sensible Mr Poster on to you.
Love,
Caz
X |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:06 pm: |
|
"And what of this evidence I read of in the original book on the diary that Barrets wife may have been a Maybrick or something?"
Anne Graham raises the theory in the preface to "The Last Victim".
"I was very much surprised when my much-loved father, now over eighty and suffering from terminal cancer, agreed to be interviewed by Paul (Feldman). During their meeting my father appeared to suggest that the reason for the journal's existence in our family was that his father was the illegitimate son of Florence Maybrick, born when she was an unmarried teenager." p.xviii
Obviously, the reader is free to give this whatever credence one wishes, alongside her comments that she saw the journal for the first time in the late '60s whilst cleaning out her grandparents' home.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
John Omlor & Chris Phillips.
Since my last post, I have been contacted privately by someone who is questioning our belief that Rod McNeil truly 'withdrew' his estimate of 1921 +/- 12 years. It seems probable that Harrison's statement about McNeil's retraction can be traced to the following fax from McNeil to Paul Feldman (dated October
14th 1993 ):
"I enjoyed our phone conversation of yesterday and appreciate the information you faxed over this morning. I also received from Randy Atkins a copy of the rebuttal section of a document entitled "The Diary Of Jack The Ripper" p.313-314. I would like to address both our conversation and this document at this time.
First, as regards the document received from Randy Atkins. I can assure you that the forensic community has reviewed my work over the past 13 years. Papers have been presented to several international and national level forensic organisations dating back to 1983. There have been four publications in peer reviewed journals that I can recall in the last 10 years. I would be happy to discuss my work with any scientist interested and have trained individuals to utilise the technique elsewhere. If the work is to be debated then a book is an impossible format to respond to. The proper forum is within the scientific communities peer review
process. I fully intend to continue utilizing this process in association with all my work.
In response to questions raised in our phone conversation, it is my strong opinion base on the auger-stms results that the document is
not new (that is, it was created prior to 1970). I am unqualified to address the conflicts this creates with when certain facts were available. Given the very short time span available for the study, it would be impossible to familiarise myself with the large body of knowledge surrounding this case. In some ways, this information in isolation may contribute to the objectivity of my report.
As with any scientific test, there is always the possibility of error, associated either with the operator or the technique itself. Thus far,
neither myself or any other member of the forensic community (of whom I'm aware) that has used the technique has discovered any
short term environmental variable that might influence the rate of ion migration (effects such as temperature or humidity). As we
discussed, it may be possible that long term storage of the document retarded ion movement, thereby creating a later date than
the test should otherwise indicate, but I have no experimental evidence to suggest whether this is possible or probable. A control study of this proposed hypothesis would require 20+ years to evaluate."
The fax is puzzling, and specifically puzzling in regards to the reference to 1970. It does seem as though McNeil is referring to specific questions raised by Feldman's earlier telephone call; in all other respects, McNeil seems to be defending his technique. More questions than answers, I'm afraid.
My correspondent raised a second question as to what Melvin Harris's source was for claiming that McNeil later acknowledged that his date estimate might have been "distorted by artificial aging" (such as oven-baking), since here (at least) McNeil seems to be stating that 'environmental variables' such as temperature wouldn't effect the speed of ion migration. The answer to this I do not currently know. Out of fairness, I thought I'd repeat these concerns. Cheers, RP |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster writes:
"The fact remains: our science is judged by peer reviewed publication in the journals. The ASC and RSC are deemed august as they publish and review literature than can have ramifications for many people and businesses. I have now been searching for a nearly three days and can find no retraction, modification or otherwsie regarding the IM technique published, where it should be, in the journals. Therfore I assume the technique is still on the table as a valid method."
Normally, I think this would be an entirely reasonable statement, but in this context I think it might be unintentionally misleading.
It should be remarked that McNeil's test was new, his journal articles were introducing his method to the scientific community. The last published article that I have been able to locate was in Literary Research Vol. 13, No 2 & 3 (Spring/Summer, 1988), p. 137-148. Here McNeil was explaining his methods. According to George J. Throckmorton (past president of a society for forensic document examiners, and a man heavily associated with the Mark Hoffman forgery case) Roderick McNeil was the only expert in the use of Scanning Auger Microscopy for the measuring of ion migration. The fact that no journal articles rebutting McNeil's claims have appeared might merely reflect both the obscurity of the procedure, and its costliness. According to Joe Nickell, very few labs even have the necessary equipment. The University of Arizona states that the cost of the proceedure is $5,000 for 8 hours of scanning. No scientific journal could be expected to fork out this type of money to adequately investigate and confirm McNeil's methods before publishing his findings.
I don't mean to be difficult here, but the only information I have been able to find about McNeil's tests seems to raise more questions than answers. Dr. Wild's inability to duplicate McNeil's tests have already been cited. On pgs. 192-194 of Detecting Forgery by Dr. Joe Nickell (who worked with McNeil on the Maybrick Diary investigation) there is a reasonably long discussion of McNeil's test being applied to anoterh case; what proported to be an early draft of the Gettysburg adress. According to Nickell, McNeil almost certainly gave the wrong date (he claimed the document was written in 1869 +/- 10 years) when all other indications were that it was a much more recent forgery. Nickell cites the Manuscript Society News, where McNeil himself seems to acknowledge this. Finally, it sems that McNeil might have even left the field; if my sources are accurate, he apparently now works for a company that is developing artificial sea-grass to prevent shoreline erosion. The accuracy of his test, therefore, might remain forever in doubt. RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Many thanks RJ, for your interesting and informative posts.
It is at least noteworthy that McNeil's opinion (for what it's worth), that the diary was created prior to 1970, is not worlds away from the opinions of Turgoose and Wild concerning the age of the watch scratches.
I can see the need for more tests - repeatable ones - before anyone can finally be sure about anything. But I do wonder what it would actually take to turn three - albeit inconclusive - 'decades old' opinions (four if you count that of the ink chemist Alec Voller) into one solid 'very recent indeed' conclusion for both artefacts.
None of the scientific results so far, IMHO, should give even the most rabid Maybrickite the screaming abdabs at the thought of further testing.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 9:19 am: |
|
Hi Caz
I was just wondering if their is a list anywhere of tests currently carried out on the Maybrick diary, the nature and time of these tests and who was responcible.
Also what conclusions were drawn from these results.
I've had a trawled through some posts but cant find a total list of everything tried.
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I don't think a comprehensive list has been compiled, although you can find certain test results in the appropriate section of Casebook, and copious references in the published Diary books to testing carried out so far, together with findings and opinions.
Here's a quick run through for you now, of various specialists in a wide assortment of fields who have examined the diary (or, in one or two cases, ink and paper samples taken from it), visually and/or forensically, and given their professional opinions and/or produced reports. There will have been others, I am sure, that I have missed here, but I hope this will do for starters:
Brian Lake (owner of Jarndyce, antiquarian bookshop)
Robert A.H. Smith (curator of 19th C manuscripts, British Museum)
Dr David Baxendale
Dr Nicholas Eastaugh (several reports)
Kenneth Rendell
Robert Kuranz
Dr Joe Nickell
Rod McNeil
Maureen Casey Owens
Dr Kate Flint
Dr Audrey Giles
Tom Cullen
Martin Fido
Keith Skinner
Paul Begg
Anna Koren
Sue Iremonger
Dr David Canter
Dr David Forshaw
Dr Diana Simpson (AFI)
Leeds University
Alec Voller (1995 - Diamine)
Prof. John C. Roberts (1995 - Paper Science, UMIST)
Bill Fairweather (1998 - traditional bookbinder, recommended by Don Rumbelow)
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 04, 2005) |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Many thanks Caz
I don't suppose you have a list of what they each looked at or a ruff idea of conclusions.
I gather that there's some stuff by Melvin Harris on casebook somewhere.
I'm afraid I've become a little distracted at work on the Stripper case at the moment so I'll try to track it down soon.
Many thanks
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Melvin Harris never actually examined the diary himself. He arranged for some ink and paper samples to be tested by AFI for the presence of what was assumed to be a modern preservative, chloracetamide.
Leeds University then did two tests for Shirley Harrison, concluding from the second that the diary ink did not contain this preservative.
Alec Voller (former chief chemist for Diamine Ink) did a visual examination of the diary itself in 1995 and concluded that the ink wasn't Diamine - a modern ink containing chloracetamide. (Also, in his opinion, the writing was 90+ years old.)
Also in 1995, Professor John C. Roberts (Paper Science UMIST), reported that chloracetamide is actually an abbreviated generic term for either of two compounds: 2-chloracetamide and N-chloracetamide. These compounds would not be expected to behave the same way during gas chromatographic separation, so it would have been essential to know before undertaking the forensic work which compound was claimed to be present.
Roberts also reported that the gas chromatographic evidence he had seen was 'unsatisfactory' because it was only 'suggestive' of 2-chloracetamide (the compound used in Diamine, according to Voller), and was not adequate in itself for a categorical identification. He added that the identification would be 'more or less worthless' without the correct procedure of using gas chromatography in conjunction with mass spectometry.
He summarised by saying that even if it could be demonstrated categorically that 2-chloracetamide was present in the ink, it would not prove anything because this compound was in existence well before 1888.
Brian Lake and Robert A.H. Smith both reported that they saw nothing inconsistent in the diary with it being a 19th century document.
Dr Baxendale thought the ink contained a more modern ingredient, but his information proved incorrect.
Dr Eastaugh thought the ink was not inconsistent with a date of 1888.
The Rendell team jointly concluded the diary was not of the right period, but differed as to just how modern they thought it was.
Dr Kate Flint, Oxford University lecturer, who looked at the language used in the diary; Audrey Giles, forensic document examiner; Tom Cullen and Martin Fido, ripper writers; all four concluded the diary was a fake.
Keith Skinner and Paul Begg have yet to reach any definite conclusions about the diary's date as far as I am aware.
Anna Koren, a graphologist, was impressed, as was Dr Forshaw, a forensic psychiatrist, and David Canter, professor of psychology and criminologist, of geographical offender profiling (or 'Mapping Murder') fame.
Sue Iremomger, a forensic handwriting examiner, concluded that the diary didn't match Maybrick's will.
Bill Fairweather, the bookbinder, concluded that there was nothing "iffy" about the diary - a Victorian guard book he said showed no signs of any tampering.
As I said, you can find more info in the Diary books and here on Casebook. If anyone wants more info from a particular report that remains unpublished, I suggest they contact the author direct, and seek their permission if they want to reproduce it here.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 09, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
"Dr Eastaugh thought the ink was not inconsistent with a date of 1888."
Eastaugh also commented that the black powder in the "gutter" of the Diary was possibly bone black, which is apparently a source for arsenic. Any follow up on this by anyone?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 5:27 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
I don't know, but it would be interesting to know if this powder could have been tested (or could still be tested, if traces remain) for the presence of arsenic.
According to the pre-diary Murder Casebook, which featured the Maybrick poisoning case, one of Maybrick's business associates, Valentine Blake, gave him 150 grams of arsenic - normally enough to kill 'well over 50' people - in March 1889. It consisted of three separate paper packets, some of the powder being white, and the rest, mixed with charcoal, black.
Of course, if arsenic could be found in the black powder in the diary, it would simply be argued that an enterprising hoaxer worth his salt had planted it there.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:16 am: |
|
"According to the pre-diary Murder Casebook"
Hi Caz - what's the story with that? Is that a magazine style thingie, and is it worth picking up?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Yes, Murder Casebook was a series of magazines published in the UK - the one with the Maybrick article is from 1990. A good friend lent it to me recently so I took a few notes before returning it.
Ebay might be a good place to look for copies.
As with all such publications, I wouldn't assume they get all their facts right. For instance, they describe Mary Hogwood as a long-standing 'mistress' of Maybrick's, in Norfolk Virginia. Interesting, if true.
Bernard Ryan's Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, however, describes her as 'Madam' Mary Hogwood, 'one of the best-known whorehouse proprietors in town'. Ryan quotes from a statement made by the lady herself, including the following:
I...do unhesitatingly say that I knew the late James Maybrick for several years, and that up to the time of his marriage he called at my house, when in Norfolk, at least two or three times a week, and that I saw him frequently in his different moods and fancies.
The Murder Casebook article contained the following information that also caught my eye, but again I'm not sure how accurate it is: that Maybrick had a 'moderate' education; that he served an apprenticeship in a ship-broker's office in London, where he met a woman [Sarah Robertson] and began a relationship with her; that this relationship produced five children, two of whom were born after his marriage to Florie; but that they 'all died at a very early age'.
Love,
Caz
X |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 3:23 pm: |
|
"Melvin Harris never actually examined the diary himself."
Just to clarify, I believe Melvin has written that he was allowed to briefly examine the diary in October, 1993. It was a visual examination. |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 90
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hello Caroline.
I've got a copy of the murder casebook too. Edition No.41 concerning thwe Maybrick and Seddon cases. 50p at a flea market. I noticed that Colin Wilson and Bill Waddell are two of the consultants, but the authors of the Maybrick articles seem to be anonymous.
Regards
Paul |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 11:20 pm: |
|
"According to the pre-diary Murder Casebook, which featured the Maybrick poisoning case, one of Maybrick's business associates, Valentine Blake, gave him 150 grams of arsenic - normally enough to kill 'well over 50' people "
One of the things that comes to mind is the Teddy Binion murder case, which had a fair degree of press here in the States a few years ago. To make a very long story very brief, it's believed that Teddy, a dissolute casino heir and a known heroin addict, was given an overdose of heroin by his lover and her accomplice. Almost got away with it as well - after all, Teddy was a heroin user and overdoses come with the trade...
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1560
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Just to clarify, I believe Melvin has written that he was allowed to briefly examine the diary in October, 1993. It was a visual examination.
And just to clarify further, in case this misleads anyone, I have never seen any suggestion that Melvin would not have been 'allowed' to examine the diary properly, at much greater length, had he made it clear that he wanted to do so. In other words, I don't believe for one minute that he was told after 30 seconds, "That's yer lot", and found the door of opportunity slammed in his face. But I can see why some people might want to believe it.
Hi Sir Robert,
The difference in Jim's case is that hardly any arsenic was found in his body - certainly not in quantities that would represent an overdose, either to Jim or a non-addict.
Apparently, we all have tiny traces of it in our bodies anyway. It is very easily detected, even in those minute quantities, and being an element it hangs around indefinitely.
My guess is that Jim's final daily doses passed through his system a few days before he died - either unwilling - or simply unable - to take any more of the stuff while confined to his sickbed. The withdrawal symptoms would probably have been severe enough to polish him off and this would explain why so little remained in his dead body.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1565
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
I have just been reminded that the only occasion Melvin was in the same room as the diary was the October 1993 press conference.
The diary was protected by a security guard, and not much more than a glance was afforded to all those present who ventured forward to have a butcher's. There was no opportunity for anyone to 'examine' the document, in the usual sense of the word.
I also understand that Melvin was positioned at the back of the room, and made no apparent moves to face his bete noire at the front.
And it appears that Melvin never did request another opportunity to see what he missed.
I must say I find it absolutely extraordinary, if true. Not because it would have changed anything at all if he had gone over it with a fine-toothed comb - I'm sure it wouldn't; but because of what it says about the sheer repellent power this document seems to have had over professionals you wouldn't normally think of as being easily repelled by any object they recognise as being within their area of expertise.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
"because of what it says about the sheer repellent power this document seems to have had over professionals you wouldn't normally think of as being easily repelled by any object they recognise as being within their area of expertise. "
That's an interesting point, Caz. Compare and contrast the vitriol with which Rendell treats the Diary in "Forging History" to his treatment of the Hitler "Diaries" in the same book.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Caz, Hello. Access to the Diary, with its claims and counter-claims, is an old, devisive issue. I don't see discussing it at this late stage as serving any useful purpose. As I originally stated---and you now confirm-- Melvin was allowed a brief examination of the Diary. Harris gave his own version of this episode on the old Casebook Archives CD, and interested parties can hunt it down; I believe he readily admitted that his examination was cursory. Of course, any forensic tests would be required to take place in a lab by forensic document examiners and chemists, as indeed, they were. If I recall, at this stage Dr. Baxendale had already made a line by line examination of the Diary under microscope; Harris, now having an opportunity to view the Diary, was attempting to confirm Baxendale's claim that the ink on the pages contained no visual signs of age-bronzing. People are people. I see nothing particular sinister.
All the best, RJ Palmer
P.S. You write, of Dr. Roberts:
"He summarised by saying that even if it could be demonstrated categorically that 2-chloracetamide was present in the ink, it would not prove anything because this compound was in existence well before 1888.'
I have an old post of Paul Begg's, quoting, I believe, a fax from Dr. Roberts stating that one couldn't rule out chloroacetamide making its way into the document "from some obscure source". Thus, it seems to me, a matter of probability. If we accept the AFI tests, either the ink contains chloroacetamide because it was a modern ink containing the preservative, or it was an older ink contaminated by, to use Dr. Robert's phrase, some obscure source. It reminds me a little of access to the police inventory list. Either it's there because the forger had access to post-1987 books in the public domain, or he had access to some obscure source. I currently don't accept the possibility of a Victorian ink containing the preservative because no one has yet produced any documentation that the synthetic compound was used commercially in the ink industry in the Victorian era. The only precise date I've ever seen is Mr. Chittenden's (Sunday Times) who states it was first used in ink in 1971. He does not name his source. Shirley Harrison makes various claims as well, but they are imprecise, and don't appear to relate to commercial use of the compound, only that the Victorians had it. Then again, aluminum has been around since before Africa split with South America, but I would be surprised to find an aluminum cup in an Egyptian vault, and, it seems to me, an explanation would be in order.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Harris, now having an opportunity to view the Diary, was attempting to confirm Baxendale's claim that the ink on the pages contained no visual signs of age-bronzing. People are people. I see nothing particular sinister.
But what I see is a direct conflict: how could Melvin have been attempting to confirm anything, if, as I am led to understand, he never even attempted the journey from back to front of room which was the pre-requisite for viewing the actual document? It appears to me that the statement that he was 'allowed to briefly examine' the diary can be translated as 'given the opportunity to briefly look at' the document, as was everyone else present, but chose not to do so, and never requested another opportunity.
Unless someone who was there knows different.
As you say, if we accept the AFI tests...
Leeds concluded there was none of this preservative actually in the ink and, like Alec Voller, that it wasn't Diamine. And Dr. Roberts didn't mince words when he said AFI's identification was next to worthless as it stands.
Seems to me that if the evidence points away from Diamine, it also points away from chloroacetamide as an active ingredient of the diary ink, and leaves two possibilities: that AFI misidentified what they found, or what they did find had made its way in other than via the manufacturing process of the diary ink itself, which would make its presence intriguing (especially as the ink taken from the diary for the second Leeds test had none at all), but wouldn't help to identify the ink or date the writing.
The point about the chemical being around well before 1888 is just that: if it was present in the ink in 1994, and if that means it had to be there when the diary was being written, it invalidates any argument that says the original diary contained a substance that didn't exist when it was supposed to have been created.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 19, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 550
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Caz---
Being strictly objective, it seems to me that the Leeds tests can be ignored. They ran two tests. Their results conflicted. They then compounded this confusion by suggesting that they had allowed contamination (!). They suggested that the presence of chloroacetamide was because they had bungled the first test, but how is one to know? They further compounded the confusion by stating the ink didn't contain either nigrosine or sodium (my source here is Shirley Harrison) but these ingredients were found by Eastaugh and confirmed by Voller. Their results leave nothing but questions.
In contrast, the AFI tests were carefully conducted. In reading Ripper Diary, I see you repeat an anecdote about a paper-clip and thus give voice to Shirley Harrison's "unimpressed" doubts about Dr. Simpson's methods. In reality, it had already been discussed long ago on these very boards (by Begg, Harris, and Street, among others) that no sterility was needed to take a paper sample since the Diary was already widely handled, the provenance was unknown, and Dr. Simpson was testing the paper for a rare synthetic compound. I imagine you recall the posts. This anecdote in no way reflects the AFI ink tests, which, I believe, Alec Voller, among others, found impressive. All the best, RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1572
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
They suggested that the presence of chloroacetamide was because they had bungled the first test, but how is one to know?
Presumably because there was none in the second test. Their equipment had already proved itself up to the task of finding the stuff when it was there - in minute quantities (which may be why they suspected contamination and decided to run a second test) so it would have had no trouble finding it again second time round, when the contamination issue had been sorted, if it was an ingredient of the ink itself. Where did it disappear to? The fact that none was found during the second test may simply have confirmed their worries that it had been introduced first time round via contamination.
Of course, once you condemn the Leeds results because of their honestly-admitted contamination problem during the first test, you can hardly argue that contamination (or 'no sterility') doesn't actually matter because the diary was already widely handled!
Yes of course it was. But even the slightest chance of introducing, at any stage of the testing process, the very substance you are actually testing for, is going to render the test invalid.
Anyway, as I've said, Dr. Roberts clearly wasn't impressed at all with AFI's identification technique re the ink. And his criticism had nothing to do with the issue of possible contamination.
Do you still have Diamine in the frame? If so, I think you have it wrong.
Love,
Caz
X
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Caz--Hello. Thanks for your observations. Always appreciated. After further thought, I think it would be best for me not to contribute further to these sorts of discussions of the 'Maybrick' document (sorry Andy), considering that I'm attempting to develop a new (though limited) examination of the diary's ink. Feel free to carry on without me, of course. But if I could ask just one small favor. I'm concerned about the objectivity of the experiment, so I think it would be imperative for people not to give their impressions about how the diary's ink is suppose to currently look or not look. I certainly am not attempting to censor anyone's opinions, it is just that this sort of thing could potentially nullify the test from the outset by tainting the expectations of any objective participants. I'm sure you can appreciate this. As for Alan Sharp's observation on the other thread, I don't think anyone can expect a 'consensus.' Perhaps such a thing isn't even desirable. We can only conduct experiments, commission tests, and complete textual studies, and then, afterwards draw reasonable conclusions. I'll be in touch, RP |
Heath Black
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
posted by Caroline Anne Morris:
"Melvin Harris never actually examined the diary himself."
Since Caroline has suddenly become worried about misleading people, I thought I'd just make it clear that it was she who made the false claim that Melvin Harris never examined the diary. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:56 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Fair enough - I'm thoroughly looking forward to the day when objective new eyes and equally objective old ones report back on the current appearance of the writing, ten years after Voller.
Hi Heath,
As you will by now have read (but being unregistered your post appeared out of order, so I'd better clarify once more!) my understanding is that Melvin had the opportunity (ie was 'allowed') to see the document briefly, simply by virtue of his presence at the press conference. That doesn't mean he chose to do so, far less that he 'examined' it as such. The very word is misleading in this context - no one got much more than a glance at the book. And since no one appears to have seen Melvin move from the back of the room to the front, where it was being guarded, I'm not sure how he is supposed to have seen it up close, if at all.
And Melvin had years to ask if he wanted a private viewing in which to look closely at all 63 pages at his leisure - he never did.
I stand by my original statement.
Melvin Harris never actually examined the diary himself.
And I remain stunned by the lack of basic curiosity.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
"And since no one appears to have seen Melvin move from the back of the room to the front, where it was being guarded, I'm not sure how he is supposed to have seen it up close, if at all.
And Melvin had years to ask if he wanted a private viewing in which to look closely at all 63 pages at his leisure - he never did.
I stand by my original statement.
Melvin Harris never actually examined the diary himself.
And I remain stunned by the lack of basic curiosity."
I agree with you, Caz. The term "examine" implies a depth of observation that clearly did not take place here. I think that the "A-Z" hit the nail on the head in their entry for Mr. Harris:
"...his indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery may lead him to make demonstrably unjustified assertions."
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Caz--I think you make an excellent point. Melvin, while no document examiner nor chemist, was an outspoken critic of the Diary. He should have (as you put it) insisted on "a private viewing in which to look closely at all 63 pages at his leisure." He, evidently, did not. As a published author on the Diary, and one who, through your own efforts, must have obtained at least a little bit of influence in the Diary World, I do hope you are willing to help see to it that the new generation of Diary critics will not repeat Melvin's negligence. That they, should the opportunity arise, get "a private viewing in which to look closely at all 63 pages at [their] leisure." It seems only fair. Cheers, RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
I'm not sure what I can do to 'help see to it' exactly. I don't have the kind of influence that could force anyone to request a viewing opportunity. I can only echo your own words, and strongly advise the 'negligent' critics of today to make the effort to see what they spend so much of their time criticising.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Heath Black
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Hi Caroline
Melvin Harris claimed to have seen the diary close enough to determine the condition of the ink, so either he was lieing or your sources are wrong.
From the orbituary page of this website:
Another respected author, Philip Sugden, supplies these final words about Melvin:
"He was a gallant pursuer of the truth. He cared about facts, truth and honesty. I respected and admired him a great deal. We've all benefited from what he's done."
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page