|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 4:17 am: | 
|
I apologize if this has had a lot of discussion, as I presume it has, but I have a question regarding the dates given by the original test.
The original test says that the age of the diary was around 1921 or 12 years either way, so 1909-1934. But it also says that the actul aging of the ink could be effected by how the diary was stored after creation.
Now, is the report saying that the diary could be a lot older or a lot younger?
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:53 am: |
|
Lee,
I am sure there is a reports by Mel Harris discussing this here on the casebook somewhere. try the James Maybrick index on the suspects pages.
Jenni |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 34
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:01 am: |
|
Thanks jenni, I have a copy of Melvin's famous disertations at home, I shall re-read them tonight.
Thanks again,
Lee |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:45 am: |
|
Lee,
no problem. have fun reading it!
Jenni |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
The ink report says that cold damp conditions might produce a later date, meaning the Diary could be older than 1909. (Feldman, JtR The FC)
(Anti-Diarists are looking at a possible late 1800's or turn of the century forger, a heavyweight like James Joyce (who mentions James and Jack in Ulysses) or Bram Stoker. Only very successful artists late in their careers seem to be willing to point a finger at themselves. Or artists who have given up in their ambitions. Mike Barrett presumably still had aspirations of being a writer. Why would he incriminate poets?)
The ink passes, pending 20 years further study of the effects of conditions of storage, according to the scientists. The ion-migration test which purports to tell when ink was put to paper is new but what reason is there to doubt it's validity? Supreme forger, Mark Hoffman of Utah would simply burn a page from a book of the right year and put it in his ink formula so it would pass carbon-dating tests. (TV show Masterminds)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 4:33 am: |
|
Hi MF,
And Mark Hoffman, unlike Mike Barrett, is a known forger. It's very interesting.
I wonder what, if anything, Barrett knew about 17th century poetry, the rondeau and Swinburne bringing it into veaugue - sorry, vogue - when he was allegedly composing the diary text and dictating to his wife Anne, poised over scrapbook with pen and Quink? They thought rendezvous should be rendered 'rondaveau' by their versically challenged and rhyme-obsessed Sir Jim, so someone's mind was doing somersaults there.
The Barretts of Goldie Street - it does have a certain ring to it.
All tongue in cheek and cheeky, of course, but I do find the whole thing endlessly fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable, in case anyone hadn't guessed already. 
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz
X
|
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 2:51 am: |
|
Caz,
I wonder what Mike knew about 17th Century Pilgrims to America!...The Grahams must have given him a crash course....
Phenomenal people, I'm sure. "Ill-tempered Geordie" and all--I don't know that I'd rather be related to James Maybrick! Ha ha. (Or as "Archie" from Bristol said in Arsenic and Old Lace: "Just the son of a sea cook".)
Historical content or context aside, the Diary cannot be a modern hoax by a would-be modern hoaxer. The ink itself rules that out. There are just to many other ways to make easy money illegally.
Unless, of course, there was a major motive like revenge. Mark Hoffman began forging with in intention of destroying the Mormon Church. Anti-Diarists might have to look at persons closer to the events in the Diary....
Hypothetically speaking, Sir Robert is on the right track.... He's just a little East of Eden.... |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Someone I don't know writes:
"...the Diary cannot be a modern hoax by a would-be modern hoaxer. The ink itself rules that out."
And that's just wrong. Putting aside all the moments in the text that scream to one's common sense "modern," there is no definitive conclusion ever offered that finally rules out the possibility of the ink being part of a modern hoax. A quick review of the Harris dissertations concerning the ink right here on the Casebook demonstrates that quite clearly. I urge anyone who might be tempted to believe the previous post to check them out.
Still, it was a nice try,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
"Hypothetically speaking, Sir Robert is on the right track.... He's just a little East of Eden...."
My God, a kind word in Diary World. Thanks, although I suspect I am very far from Eden.
I have likened the scientific debate on the Diary and the Watch to the Shroud of Turin controversy. A tremendous amount of money, time and expertise has been expended trying to date the object, to no conclusion. Interestingly, the following story popped up on AP yesterday:
Shroud of Turin could date to Jesus' time
1/29/2005, 9:01 a.m. ET
By FRANCES D'EMILIO
The Associated Press
ROME (AP) — A chemist who worked on testing of the Shroud of Turin says new analysis of the fiber indicates the cloth that some say was the burial linen of Jesus could be up to 3,000 years old.
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/international-10/1107003805161830.xml&storylist=international
I'm not trying to hijack the conversation towards the Shroud, just pointing out the analogy and saying testing may not resolve the Watch/Diary hoax.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 2:23 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
I have likened the Watch and Diary controversy to the St. James Ossuary, disparate handwriting and all. Two years ago, they were saying they could see the patina in the scratches. Now they say the patina is scratched.
What's going on here? Is science subject to unusual phenomena? Maybe ion migration isn't so reliable after all....
"The mobility of an ion in a particular medium is [supposed] to be constant and characteristic of that ion." (chemsoc.org) Dissolution occurs on contact with the paper and the ions migrate to different poles. At least, that's my understanding. Migration is affected however by acidity or an alternating magnetic field. Nothing an enterprising and artistic forger couldn't handle with the proper motivation.
Artists are 500 years ahead of science. Or is it 3000?
"...it was a nice try..."
Kind words indeed. Diary World is really beginning to look like Disney World. I didn't rip up my registration form this time. |
Liz Stride.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Is it me or are any people that still believe in the diary a bit gullible. The 'watch' was found just after the diary, coincedence? I think not. I would date the diary to 1990, give or take a couple of years, why? In 1987, for the centenery there was a glut of books. One of them was 'Jack The Ripper, One Hundred Years Of Mystery' by Peter Underwood. All the mistakes in this book were repeated in vertabim in the diary. This book wasn't widely published, nor did it have much print runs. As it was published in 1987 (hardback) then 1988 in paperback, we can then assume that the diary should be dated 1990, give ir take a year or two.
Any doubters should take a look at the MJK photo in that book, a backward MF can be seen clearly in the photo. It's blood splashes or a trick of the light, but it's a zoomed in photo of MJK on her bed where the forger obviously got the idea from. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 526
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:36 pm: |
|
Hi MF,
The St. James Ossuary forgery is just one example where people with agendas can distort the results of scientific studies. In that case, the first tests were done by Biblical Archeology Review, a publication well known for trying to distort science to prove their own religious beliefs. They declared it genuine because they wanted to believe it was genuine. Since then we've learned that the ossuary was just one of hundreds of antiquities forged by a small team of unscrupulous individuals preying on gullible buyers.
For other artifacts generally believed to have somewhat similar origins, there's also the Vinland map (a map of the new world allegedly made by Vikings), the Shroud of Turin (which has recently had yet another scientist making claims to have proven the exact opposite of the scientific tests immediately prior), the Minoan Snake Goddess figurines (conveniently discovered by people who knew an archeologist was looking for proof of a female-dominated religion in Crete) and many more.
The point here is that science is not a magic wand for uncovering fraud. If someone wants to see certain results they very often will, consciously or unconsciously. The main feature of science that is so important is that new discoveries are repeatedly tested by others. It's this verifying of other people's results by multiple teams that makes science strong. In cases where that doesn't happen, science hasn't really weighed in to its full extent yet.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:36 am: |
|
Dan writes,
"It's this verifying of other people's results by multiple teams that makes science strong. In cases where that doesn't happen, science hasn't really weighed in to its full extent yet."
Thank you, Dan.
And in this case, we have a watch that has been subject to barely scientific observational examinations, but a fully qualified lab has never been given full access to it for thorough testing. We also have a book that hasn't been thoroughly tested in years and no lab has been given the book to at least confirm results or to solve the partial contradictory findings we already have.
Of course, in this case, science will probably never be allowed to really weigh in to its full extent.
Surely that should tell us something,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:41 am: |
|
I still don't understand what is the problem with the 1921 thing?
is it just wrong in terms of what it suggests? |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Jenni,
As RJ wrote on another thread,
"Rod McNeil later withdrew his 1920 +/- estimate. It seems that he couldn't coherently explain to those like Dr. Eastaugh, Rendell, or Robert Smith exactly how his test worked. If it isn't independently repeatable, it isn't science."
Hope that helps,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
" the Shroud of Turin (which has recently had yet another scientist making claims to have proven the exact opposite of the scientific tests immediately prior), "
An apt analogy, where millions of dollars and thousands of man hours have produced conflicting reports.
"The point here is that science is not a magic wand for uncovering fraud."
Unfortunately true.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Once again,
The Shroud of Turin is not at all an "apt analogy."
It is a completely different sort of artefact involving a completely different type of historical claim and is composed of completely different sorts of materials and much of the science involved in testing would be completely different. There is no ink in the Shroud, there is no paper, there is no handwriting, there are no words, and the window of time under consideration is much much larger than the 120 years or so in question with the watch and diary.
If comparisons are going to be offered, the things being compared should in some way resemble each other. These two forensic situations do not. Therefore, the analogy is flawed at best and misleading at worst.
Just thought I'd point that out,
--John |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Hi John
I can think of a way to tie this all together, the Shroud, the Diary and the Watch. As we know, a crucifix was supposedly found in the trunk that had belonged to Billy Graham. It is said to be what is known as a Golgotha cross, with a skull at the base of the cross, supposedly the very type of cross used by the sisters of the Providence Row Night Shelter in Crispin Street, where Mary Jane Kelly is said to have stayed. Is it possible that in that same trunk there may have been a piece of the True Cross??? If that were so, are we far away from claiming the Diary and the Watch might themselves have lain at the base of the cross at Golgotha? 
Thinking silly thoughts
Chris (should be ashamed but isn't...)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Hello
The "tests" that have been applied to the diary and watch have hardly been real "analytical science" despite their high tech "ion migration" names. The Los Alamos mans revision of the Shroud of Turin date is a perfect example.: one sample being analysed does not an answer provide.
Any analyst will tell you that good laboratory practice and a fundamental understanding of how analytical science is conducted requires a range of samples, preferably a range of techniques performed by a range of accredited laboratories before a reasonable consensus (I did not even say "result"!) can be obtained. Not one or two isolated analyses with, in one case, what seems to be a contaminated HPLC column (basic mistake!).
The analysis results to date would not stand up in court and should not be even discussed as realistic. Until someone pays up for a full battery of tests on a good number of samples by accredited laboratories we can forget meaningful discussion of the dating of the diary by chemical analyses.
Its interesting how anti-diarists accept what are obviously flawed analytical results and weak results based on one or two small samples and reject the hand writing analysis performed by the Israeli woman who had the "perfect sample" from a scientific point of view (ie. the whole book). Strange given that handwriting analyses is accepted as being able to prove JTR letters are false or whatever by anti-diarists but is rejected once it comes to confirming the psychological state of the diary author.
It seems we are still selecting evidence to suit our own theories. The fatal flaw of all Ripperologists perhaps.
Get someone to pay and subject the diary to the full power of analytical science! Techniques such as Accelerator Mass Spectrometry could really open some doors. Isotope ratios in the ink and paper! In particular in the watch. Virtually all metal manufactured after WWII contains atoms of isotopes produced by nuclear fission. Unlike Victorian metal. If the brass embedded in the scratches of the watch contain post WWII isotopes , possibly measureable by AMS, then the arguement is over. But if they do not, then either the scratches were made before WWII or the forger went to the trouble of finding a Victorian piece of brass to do the scratching. Which seems just a little unlikely to me.
Carbon dating is just a little troublesome given the ease of contaminating the sample.
Mr Poster |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 528
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Hi John,
You may think that the Shroud of Turin analogy isn't apt, but then that's only if you are extremely restrictive in what you consider comparable. The claims are similar: authentic versus forged a long time later. The materials are different, yes, obviously, but so what, they both can be tested. The science involved is different because of the different materials, but again, so what?
The point is, they are both cases where people go back and forth arguing non-stop quoting "science" and "logic" on their side and unwilling to let it rest. They both have different interpretations, hugely vocal proponents of each side, owners who restrict access to testing, people who think they know the answers before all the information is in, and so forth. Both cases also have side artifacts that appeared out of nowhere of equally questionable history, the alleged Maybrick cross as Chris mentions being a perfect example.
I'm curious... I don't follow the diary threads because they don't usually feature anything interesting (mostly insults, weird claims and tedious repeated references to purple dragons), so maybe you mentioned this at some point already, but are you objecting to the comparison to the Shroud of Turin because you believe that's real, or because you don't like people talking about things unless they line up exactly the way you want them to?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1181
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
The crucial differences far outweigh the similarities, and if the argument is being used to draw conclusions about the efficacy of testing, then the completely different set of forensic tasks (due to the differences between the materials and the dates claimed) are critically important.
You write:
"The claims are similar: authentic versus forged a long time later."
But relative to the Shroud, the "long time later" isn't actually all that long in our case, only about a century of possibilities, and therefore much more finite a set of questions.
I am objecting to the comparison because it seems sometimes to be used here by some people as an argument against the call for a complete and thorough and careful testing of these two artefacts (which should have been done years ago, of course).
The forensic situations are completely different. And as the post prior to yours suggests, the real science has never had a chance to weigh in fully and properly on either of these things.
Mr Poster,
I follow your argument and basically agree with most of it -- except for the odd paragraph that begins "Its interesting how anti-diarists accept what are obviously flawed analytical results and weak results..."
I suppose I qualify as an "anti-diarist," and I certainly do NOT accept any of these flawed and weak results from the preliminary and speculative and contradictory tests we have had so far. I agree with you that a complete set of thorough tests using the latest technologies should be done and I also suggest that those responsible for these artefacts have a responsibility to arrange for them or to at least send the artefacts to labs to see what is and is not possible.
As for the handwriting in the diary, it is clearly not the real James Maybrick's and no expert has ever said it was.
Here's hoping that someday the right thing will indeed be done,
--John
PS: Dan -- I think Chris was just kidding.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
Hi Mr Poster,
But if they do not, then either the scratches were made before WWII or the forger went to the trouble of finding a Victorian piece of brass to do the scratching. Which seems just a little unlikely to me.
But of course, the argument would then be that the forger obviously did go to the trouble of finding a Victorian tool to do the job.
Such is the faith shown here in the modern hoax theory, that no expert anywhere could rock it - no matter how much trouble other people are told to go to, and no matter how much money other people are told they must throw at these artefacts, despite being told they are both worthless and that ripperland would be better off if they were destroyed.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Police Constable
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Hello Mr Poster
Most interesting post and something I have been wrestling with over the past week. Can any tests prove if the diary is fake or real?
Dan mentioned the Vineland map, which was thought to be fake when Dr Walter McCrone reported that its ink contained ANATASE a form of titanium which first appeared in ink during the 1920's. Twenty years later, in 1992, Dr Thomas Cahill of UC Davis found anatise in a variety of medieval manuscripts and the question was reopened.
So even if your test prove either way new information may alter the results. Testing appears to be an art as much as a sceince. In this the Shroud of Turin is a good enallergy, however their are a number of other diaries, manuscripts, forgeries that might be better.
It seems that whether anti or pro Diary almost everyone agree's that more and better tests are required. Therefore logic dictates to me that raising money is actually the main problem in hand.
Mr Poster or any body else for that matter. If we had the money and access to the Diary. What tests would you suggest?
I've made a note about Accelerator Mass Spectrometry and Isotope ratio's in ink and paper. I shall look these up but i'm afraid I'm no scientist.
Are there any other tests you think we could run on the Diary? I'm particularly interested in anything new or cutting edge purhaps not tried before. Any advice greatly received as I'm currently researching this area.
Jeff Leahy
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
If you write me e-mail, I'll give you the name, phone number, and email address of the director of one of the most famous and well-respected labs for this sort of thing in the United States. You can ask him your questions and see what answers you get.
Unfortunately, one of the things he's likely to tell you is that he'd need to at least look at the old reports and the book itself before he could say with confidence precisely what tests would be best and what they might or might not be able to accomplish. That's fine, of course. It's a logical and responsible position for any professional to take.
Unfortunately, it's never going to happen.
So we're stuck talking here about stuff we can't really know for sure, because the experts won't be sent the material.
Anyway, send mail to omlor@tampabay.rr.com and I'll send you the contact info for your research.
All the best,
--John |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Hi Dan
I don't know what the arguments are re the Shroud that have been put forward here but I would agree with your assessment that in terms of the Shroud and Diary, "The claims are similar: authentic versus forged a long time later."
I think there is also another possible similarity between the two questioned artifacts, that if one were to want to forge an 1888 Diary or a circa 33 AD Shroud, one would to begin by choosing an old Victorian diary, scrapbook, or ledger to write the Diary in, and similarly for the Shroud, find an old piece of cloth that might date to the time of Christ on which to put the image of Christ. So the dating of the cloth to biblical times does not mean much--it would behoove the forger to begin with a period cloth to fake their artifact.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on February 17, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Dan was responding to my pointing out the significant differences between the two artefacts and the two forensic situations. I was objecting to the comparison because it seems sometimes to be used here by some people as an argument against the call for a complete and thorough and careful testing of these two alleged Maybrick artefacts (which should have been done years ago, of course).
I pointed out that the Shroud is a different sort of artefact involving a different type of historical claim and is composed of different sorts of materials and much of the science involved in testing would be completely different. There is no ink in the Shroud, there is no paper, there is no handwriting, there are no words, and the window of time under consideration is much much larger than the 120 years or so in question with the watch and diary.
Consequently, any attempt to use the Shroud case to call into question the efficacy of thoroughly and properly and professionally testing the watch and diary is not exactly a logical argument.
That was my only point.
I agree, though, that in both cases, you'd have to start with acquiring historically appropriate cloth or paper.
All the best,
--John
|
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:13 am: |
|
For goodness sake! The idiotic, childish, marks in the watch are only rough scratches such as could be done with a pin, needle, or any other such sharp instrument. Forget the word 'tool', it's a bit too suggestive of a proper etching tool. After all, Victorian hat pins are ten a penny, easily obtainable, and often made of brass. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:18 am: |
|
Hello John V. Omlor
The Israeli expert (cannot remember her name) attested to the psychological state of the writer, not the handwriting. And seemed to think that the diary was consistently indicative of a fairly psychotic author. Which I doubt is that easy to forge - either today by a working man and little education or in the past when descriptions of the mental states of murderers were not exactly fleshed out.
The odd paragraph: I m trying to articulate that, where lab evidence, such as it is, indicates recent provenance for the diary, anti-diarists use that to back up the forgery theory. Yet the psychological analysis conducted by the previously mentioned woman, constitutes from an analytical perspective, a much more "ideal" analysis. It was conducted "blind" (we are told), by a leader in the field using the whole entity and not just carefully selected samples. Judgement was made on the basis of the whole book, rather than just fragments and th eopinion remained consistent for the whole docuemnt. Yet this analysis usually seems to be conveniently forgotten and more attention is focussed on the more dubious scientific results produced to-date.
Regarding the missing 40 pages. Apparently in the Victorian era it was quite common to whip out pages so the book could be used for a new purpose. Indeed I well remember tearing out the used pages in my partially used maths homework jotter to quickly convert it into my English homework jotter to save a few pence.
I agree about the handwriting but we are not exactly drowning in authenticated Maybrick handwriting samples. I doubt that the style of writing is typical for J. Maybrick either. Its hardly likley that he wrote his business letters in such a style. But I doubt Maybrick was compus mentus when he (if he) wrote the diary so that hardly adds up to damning evidence.
Human nature just suggests that the diary is not an old forgery (it would have surfaced sooner; too much work went into such a clever forgery for it not to have). And the people being accused of having made it as a modern forgery just do not seem capable (no offence intended) of producing such an enigmatic doucment. It just doesnt make sense to think they did. Neither the wtch or the diary have arrived at Sothebys and there has hardly been a forttune made out of either of them. In fact right now, the only way these "modern forgers" could get some cash out of them is to write a thorough expose of why and how they did it. And yet that has not happened.
And just digressing a little: Im always a little worried at the faith invested in things like a policemans/doctors description of where a piece of flesh was lying in a particular room or similar observations. Crime solving in the Victorian era just was not as heavily reliant on forensic evidence as we are in the "C.S.I. Miami" age. In fact forensic evidence was rarely used. So it cannot be expected that information recorded was 100% accurate at the time, nor that, in some cases, it has managed to survive over the years without aberration. So we cannot really condemn anything because it does not fit with one miniscule piece of "concrete" evidence. Such as where a particular breast was placed.
Greetings
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Hello Jeff Leahy
This is not my field as I am a physicist but I will stab at it (no pun intended):
As far as I know ink application (there is no point dating the book as it is Victorian) is dated by either chemical composition or by assessing how easy it is to get the ink off the paper but the latter is only good for recent documents.
The former is obviously the one that has been tried and produced problems but I think the problems relate to how the tests were done rather than the quality of the test if you see my point.
Infrared spectrometry of the ink and the paper under the ink might give some insight into the penetration of the inks constituents on the paper?
My favourite however is this and if I had the cash and a PhD student of some calibre, this is what I would do.
Paper and moisture from the atmosphere forms a basic chromatographic system. Different components (I am thinking in particular of metals) of the ink will move into and around the paper near the ink mark at different rates. I would take some paper from around one of the ink blots. I would then separate it into thicknesses somehow and a grid surrounding the blot and start looking for various metals that are in the ink with a very sensitive instrument such as Inductively coupled Mass Spectrometry.
If some kind of pattern or measure of metal migration or metal migration relative to other metals around the ink blot could be established, maybe it is possible that that pattern could be used to come up with an estimate of application time?
But the imponderables are great, such as storage condition etc. But we do not need an exact time. Just whether or not it was applied in the last 50 years for example to rule out the possibility of at least a modern forgery. Because I think that an old forgery is just non-realistic. It would have surfaced before now.
The analysing of the ink which is the subject of so much discussion is a red herring. I could buy a bottle of it myself next week if I tried.
Analysing when it was applied to the paper is a different matter.
Has the diary ever been submitted for complete examination by scientists or just samples? A group of scientists may easily be able to see facets of the book that may provide information.
The methods that have been thrown at the diary all sound really great to the non-scientist. Auger microscopy, scanning electron microscopes, GCMS etc. etc. But they all analyse the ink. Focus attention on the interaction between ink and paper maybe. And the technique is virtually irrelevant: its how it is applied that determines the reliability of the result.
The watch on the other hand is a different kettle of fish and I think the analysis by Bristol on the scratches was well done and it would seem to indicate an old age to the scratches.And based on the data that conclusion is reasonable. Plus, R.K.Wild is a definite expert in his field and publishes regularly within his field of corrosion science.
Knowing scientists as I do, I would wager that if the challenge was set to a group of scientists they would jump at it: determine if you can when this ink was applied to this page. I imagine the diray would however dissappear in a flurry of samples!
Sorry I cannot be of more help but the book needs to be studied carefully by a commitee of scientists. Not sending around ink spots in sample jars.
I really hope my colleagues do not see this or I am going to be lynched in the canteen!
Mr Poster
|
lars nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Godag everybody
}" the Shroud of Turin (which has recently had yet another scientist making claims to have proven the exact opposite of the scientific tests immediately prior), "
An apt analogy, where millions of dollars and thousands of man hours have produced conflicting reports.
This is simply not true. All the scientists on the original Shroud analysis came to consensus - the sample indicated medieval age. The current controversy is that the sample was drawn from a restitched portion after one of the fires in th emiddle ages. The scientists agreed, it was just the sample that was not representative. If anything, this proves that a collection of scientists will come to a common conclusion usually but that conclusion is only as good as the sample used to provide the information.
lars |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Hello all!
Sorry for this but I am completely breathless. I have just been down in my institutes library as thuis whole thing is on my mind. And I found a paper from the RSC (who are well respected as publishers of high quality scientific info). You can maybe access the article here but it may require membership: http://pubs.rsc.org/ej/CS/2000/a903358k.pdf
This article details a method for dating the application of ink to paper with an uncertainty of 20 years. It is indeed the ion migration method or the migration of in this case, iron, out from the edges of the ink marks (as I hypothesized earlier but using a different and better analytical technique). Even allowing for storage conditions etc., and a doubling of uncertainty, it seems quite clear to me that the diary could be dated to +/- 40 years if someone sees fit to submit it for analysis.
Therefore, the question is not can we date the ink application, rather can we pay for it and are we willing to finally bite the bullet and demand the diary is submitted for such an analysis?
And before someone says "Ah yes, but Michael Barrett/unknown forger diluted the ink to make it run more", if the water in Michael barrets area contains flouride as many supplies do, then just test the ink for flouride maybe. Unless of course our forgers decided to use distilled water. Ad infinitum.
I have to give up cigarettes!
Mr Poster |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1939
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
i have three words to add to this thread and they are tin matchbox empty! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 727
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Mr Poster
This article details a method for dating the application of ink to paper with an uncertainty of 20 years. It is indeed the ion migration method or the migration of in this case, iron, out from the edges of the ink marks (as I hypothesized earlier but using a different and better analytical technique). Even allowing for storage conditions etc., and a doubling of uncertainty, it seems quite clear to me that the diary could be dated to +/- 40 years if someone sees fit to submit it for analysis.
Therefore, the question is not can we date the ink application, rather can we pay for it and are we willing to finally bite the bullet and demand the diary is submitted for such an analysis?
Thank you for posting the link to the review article.
The problem is that the reference given in the section on "Dating manuscript inks" is "R. J. McNeil, Literary Res., 1988 13, 137."
Presumably this is the very same Roderick McNeil who has already tried to date the diary using ion migration measurements. Apparently the technique he used on the diary was scanning auger microscopy, the same one described in the review article.
This dissertation by Melvin Harris has more information on McNeil's claims and how they are viewed by other scientists. It includes a quotation from Robert Smith, the owner of the diary, according to which Robert Wild has already tried and failed to use scanning auger microscopy to measure ion migration in the diary; Wild and Smith's "ink and paper expert", Dr Eastaugh, are stated to be sceptical about McNeil's claims:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/factfile.html
The RCS may indeed be an august body, but it appears that in this instance it has published a review article in which McNeil's dubious claims have simply been taken at face value.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on February 17, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster,
I repeat, no expert has ever said the handwriting in the diary looks anything like the real James Maybrick's or could be his. Ever.
And we do indeed have plenty of samples now verified as his of different sorts -- there are a dozen in fact. The handwriting in the diary is just not his. Sorry.
And there is no evidence anywhere in any of the records that the real James suffered from any MPD, so that's simply an imaginative fantasy created just to explain something that can be simply and logically explained with just a bit of common sense. The diary is not in the real James Maybrick's handwriting because he did not write it. I realize that may be too obvious an explanation for some, but it's still the logical one.
Also, there is nothing "ideal" about "psychological analyses" of handwriting from an unknown author. In fact, its about as far from objective science in a laboratory which produces hard data as one can possibly get. It's an act of interpretation of the most subjective sort.
There is also nothing anywhere in the diary that a modern forger could not have easily known and put there. And considering the forgers didn't even bother to get the handwriting correct, I'm not sure I would speculate on who could or could not have produced this silly little melodramatic narrative of good versus evil in the most simplistic of traditional structures with precious little information of any real historical nature about any of the murders and even some of that simply wrong.
It's a fake.
And you can't say "well, maybe the diary was right and the historical record and the doctors and the police were somehow all wrong." That's just beginning with the very premise you are trying to prove and therefore rendering your reading invalid by definition.
The diary gets stuff wrong, mentions modern places and cites a document unavailable to the public until modern times and is in the wrong handwriting and has no verifiable provenance whatsoever. It's amazing that anyone still think it might be real.
There is no real evidence anywhere that has ever been produced of any sort that even suggests that the real James Maybrick killed these women or had anything at all to do with this book.
The book itself is in the wrong handwriting and points to its own modern composition repeatedly making simple historical mistakes as it goes.
But we do agree on one thing.
You write:
"Sorry I cannot be of more help but the book needs to be studied carefully by a committee of scientists. Not sending around ink spots in sample jars. "
Absolutely. The entire book needs to be submitted to qualified professionals. They need complete access to it for thorough objective testing. Same with the watch. This all should have been done long ago. It's shameful that we're still waiting.
Lars,
Excellent point. And supported by what the experts have told me personally.
Thanks,
--John |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
My following post is somewhat superseded by Chris Phillip's above, but I feel obliged to post the following, as I was asked by private email to expand on my statement of February 15th:
“It might be worth remembering that Rod McNeil later withdrew his 1920 +/- estimate. It seems that he couldn't coherently explain to those like Dr. Eastaugh, Rendell, or Robert Smith exactly how his test worked. If it isn't independently repeatable, it isn't science.”
Perhaps I should have wrote “demonstrate” instead of “explain.” At any rate, here goes.
McNeil was invited to join the Rendell team in their examination of the Diary, along with, among others, Joe Nickell. McNeil originally stated that his tests convinced him that the Diary was written in 1921 +/- 12 years. Both Nickell and Rendell came to doubt this conclusion:
Dr Joe Nickell: "...current evidence shows he [McNeil] also obtained an erroneous date.. .for the forged “Jack the Ripper” diary, one potential problem having been the diary's unsized (and thus extra absorbent) paper. In contrast, a British examiner used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages." 'Detecting Forgery by Joe Nickell (University Press of Kentucky, March 1996) pg. 194)
Melvin Harris wrote of this: “Later on McNeil accepted that his results could have been distorted by artificial ageing of the document, (heating in a oven can do this and that technique was well-known as a result of the massive publicity given to the fake Mussolini diaries which had been oven-aged.” “The Maybrick Hoax: A Fact File for the Perplexed.” (April, 1997)
As for Kenneth Rendell, Shirley Harrison reported her private conversations with him:
“When I met Kenneth Rendell he had shifted his stance. He still had absolutely no doubt the Diary was a modern forgery. But he now felt it was a modern forgery of within the last few years. Rod McNeil had re-examined his own report and issued a statement admitting that the storage conditions of a document could affect the tests he conducted and that a controlled study to test the Diary scientifically could take 20 years.” Shirley Harrison, The Diary of Jack the Ripper (Blake, 1998) p. 260
Robert Smith, the diary’s owner said this about the McNeil’s ion migration test: " It is our belief that McNeil and Rendell will be unable to explain or provide a scientifically satisfactory explanation of his dating technique, or even to prove that a satisfactory test on the diary was possible. Our ink and paper expert, Dr Nicholas Eastaugh, took the diary to the highly respected auger microscopist, Robert Wild PhD, DSc, of Bristol University, who conducted several tests on the diary using the University's scanning auger microscope. No result could be obtained because when the machine bombarded the paper with electrons, it created a static charge which distorted the signals. Even if McNeil were able to show that he had discovered a breakthrough technique to combat the static charge, he must still explain to the scientific community how he can use the microscope to date manuscripts with any degree of useful accuracy. Dr Wild and Dr Eastaugh are 'sceptical' that he will be able to. Furthermore, it appears that his test has not been independently verified by scientists." (p314 'Hyperion' US hardback); also quoted by Melvin Harris: “The Maybrick Hoax: A Fact File for the Perplexed, April, 1997)
Of this same test, Shirley Harrison wrote:
“Research chemist Dr. Eastaugh and I took the Diary to Interface Analysis Centre of Bristol University where Dr. Robert Wilde ran a test on equipment similar to that used by McNeil. He concluded that such a test could not be carried out as claimed. He also stated that not enough had been published about this particular test.” (Blake, p. 366)
As I stated, McNeil later withdrew his original 1920 +/- estimate, saying instead, “It is my strong opinion that the document was....created prior to 1970....as with any scientific test there is always the possibility of error associated either with the operator or the technique itself...” quoted by Harrison, (Blake, p. 366)
So, it seems fair to comment that there is considerable doubt about the McNeil's original claim of 1920, and even he, it seems, is now reluctant to endorse it. RP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
For goodness sake! The idiotic, childish, marks in the watch are only rough scratches such as could be done with a pin, needle, or any other such sharp instrument. Forget the word 'tool', it's a bit too suggestive of a proper etching tool. After all, Victorian hat pins are ten a penny, easily obtainable, and often made of brass.
Good point, AAD.
But which case does it help more? The one for a Victorian making his mark? Or the one for a 1993 hoaxer pretending to be a Victorian making his mark - and fooling two experts in the process?
Hard to tell what 'side' you are on here.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
Caz,
i am quite surprised you of all people should ask someone what side they are on. perhaps they are still making up their mind!
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Jeff Leahy
Police Constable
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
Hi Mr Poster
Can you drop me an email: jeff.leahy@btinternet.com
As I explain I'm interested in tests that have been done but also in any new ideas, theories tests that could be done for forged documents in general.
Jeff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
I wasn't asking, Jen. I just said it was hard to tell.
AAD was obviously quite fired up, to say: For goodness sake!, and to call the marks idiotic and childish.
I thought it went without saying that whoever made those marks must be - or must have been - idiotic and childish.
A show of emotion like this usually betrays a strong opinion on these boards. It's just that in this case, the strong opinion itself wasn't betrayed. AAD could be fingering Maybrick as the childish idiot who made marks with a brass hat pin.
What do you think?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
actually,
while i see where you are coming from. i took childish idiot as a pretty strong indicator that AAD thought that was a forger not the real James Maybrick.
The real James Maybrick didnt make those marks after all, now did he?
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
Hello
The link to the article provided indicated, as per my intention, the ion migration would seem to be the way to go. The method, having undergone what would appear to be two independant reviews appears to be sound, at leats in theory. As I have said previously, the application of any method can only be sound when done by a range of accredited labs.
on a range of samples. BUt having read McNeills first paper, the method appears sound and would therfore seem to be an appropriate test if applied in a correct scientific manner.
regarding the to-ing and fro-ing about the date by McNeill: if I was faced with the prospect of a lot of irate Ripperologists, I would probably change my mind too.
Regarding the handwriting of James Maybrick. Any forger who had gone to the lengths that anti-diarists assume they went to would surely have made some effort to match up Maybricks handwriting? It just doesnt make sense to be so in-depth in some aspects (the symptoms of arsenic addiction etc. etc. ) and miss out on something so obvious.
mr Poster
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Hello Jeff Leahy
I'm an analytical chemist now working in the physics field - I am no expert on document dating at all!
I can send you an email but I would not get your hopes up!
Jeff V Omlors' contact is possibly more inetersting.
But I will send you my email address.
Mr Poster
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Hello Chris
Having published in the RSC journals myself, I am aware of their review process. I dont mean to be be disrespectful but quite frankly, Melvin Harris has a vested interest in disproving the technique. I doubt ion migration is going to make anyone a millionaire. So which view do we trust?
Unfortuantely for your opinion, the litiginous nature of american science means that the ACS is even more strict thean RSC and yet they accepted McNeills paper. So now we have the two most august chemical societies on the planet against Mr Harris aregarding the validity of a chemical test. Hmmmmmm.
Doesnt matter. Get twenty labs to analyse the material using whatever techiques they choose and see what the consensus is.
And stop tilting at windmills. It is arrogant to assume that the people you rely on to approve the methods that are used to certify the drugs that you and a billion people rely on every day just managed to let the test that disagreed with your opinion slip through their net.
Lord above. Wait until you see the results of a proper scientific analysis before you start criticising the professional representatives of a science you may not be a member of.
My arguement as descibed in all the psots I have made, is to send the diary to many scientists and see what the consensus is. I only provuided the link to show that, this technique, irrespective of Mr Harrises claim, is sufficiently worthy to make it past RSC's rather rigourous review process.
If RSC's review process is not enough for you, then I recomend you stop taking all drugs available today, as pretty much all of them and the means for certifying their purity went through the same review process. You can use meditation or something for your next headache.
Im beginning to wonder what is going on. It does not matter who validates anything: anti diarist supporters are willing to denigrate anything and anybody who suuggests differently.
Hi
Mr poster |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Godag
I agree with Mr Poster. In the 1970's I participated in various drug trials as part of my pharmacology course. And my own mother told me that she could not recognise my handwriting as written during such trials. And they were only for anti-depressants.
I do not know the RSC but the point remains: it is ridiculous to question proper authorities on one paper just because they do not agree with your opinions.
The fact remains: anti-diarists will lose their livlihoods should the diary be proved true. No more books on Tunblety when Maybrick is confirmed as the killer.
That fact alone throws them all in doubt.
How sad they must call into question the integrity of so many scientists to maintain what must be in effect a meagre income. They must hope to keep their egos intact.
Hilsen
Lars |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Mr Poster writes:
"Any forger who had gone to the lengths that anti-diarists assume they went to would surely have made some effort to match up Maybricks handwriting? It just doesnt make sense to be so in-depth in some aspects (the symptoms of arsenic addiction etc. etc. ) and miss out on something so obvious."
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.
There is nothing in the diary that demonstrates an extraordinary amount of skill or even professional quality research. The details in the book about the history we do know are sketchy at best and sometimes just downright wrong. It should be no surprise that forgers who could make such stupid mistakes and who included no new information and nothing they could not have found fairly easily in readily available books also completely screwed up on the handwriting.
Normally, in a rational world, the fact that the diary was not in anything like the real James Maybrick's handwriting, the fact that it's not even close to the many samples we have, the fact that no expert has ever said it could be the real James Maybrick's handwriting, would tell people what?
Obviously.
That the real James didn't write it.
But not here. No. This is a magical and bizarre and truly wacky world, where the fact that the document is not in anything like the real James Maybrick's handwriting is offered as evidence that he must have written it.
It's no wonder this discussion can never end.
This is desire, pure and simple -- the making of excuses at all costs.
And it always makes me smile.
Also, if an experiment is not repeatable, then the results cannot be trusted. The McNeil results were not repeatable. That's why McNeil himself withdrew his original claim about the age of this document.
Finally, Lars writes:
"anti-diarists will lose their livlihoods should the diary be proved true."
This is simply and demonstrably not true.
I am an anti-diarist, I suppose. And my livelihood is in no way, shape, or form in jeopardy or even related to whether this thing is a cheap hoax or not.
I have nothing at stake here and no real interest being risked. I just know the book's an obvious fake. And no one has ever found any real evidence of any sort anywhere that links this book or these murders in any way to the real James Maybrick, and the text points over and over again to the real James NOT being its author. So I'm pretty comfortable with this conclusion.
I enjoyed today's reading more than I have in many a day.
Thanks all,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1962
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Ahem,
(where's the coterie when you need it? Yes i was joking here!)
anyway, thats as light hearted as it gets round here so,
anyway!!
Mr Poster,
'regarding the to-ing and fro-ing about the date by McNeill: if I was faced with the prospect of a lot of irate Ripperologists, I would probably change my mind too.'
sorry first off i don't think that's fair to say. When we're talking about the truth a lot of irrated ripperologists shouldnt make any difference frankly. if it's right it's right and if it's wrong it's wrong (tautology their John), surely to goodness the actions of others don't change that?!
not that i don't understand what you are saying here.
emotions run high round here. that's not really an excuse.
'Any forger who had gone to the lengths that anti-diarists assume they went to would surely have made some effort to match up Maybricks handwriting? It just doesnt make sense to be so in-depth in some aspects (the symptoms of arsenic addiction etc. etc. ) and miss out on something so obvious. '
it really depends what you mean by in depth.
but certainly James Maybricks handwriting would match (thats logical).
You assume the forger went to great lengths according to us. But that is the opposite of what we say. in fact we think they must have been quite stupid to make such foolish mistakes (I say we as though we speak with one coherent voice which is of course b**locks there is no we, but anyway i digress) mistakes like the handwriting, the table, tin match box empty, etc.
mistakes that JTR would not have made. Mistakes James would not have made, and did not make because he did not write this diary or scratch this watch.
'It does not matter who validates anything: anti diarist supporters are willing to denigrate anything and anybody who suggests differently.'
I'm sorry but i have to disagree with that one!
Lars,
'anti-diarists will lose their livlihoods should the diary be proved true.'
sorry you are wrong, the three of us regulars on here who might call ourselves anti diarists (hi John O, hi Chris P) and others who would also call themselves this would not lose their livelihoods. you seem to forget what we are all aiming for here is the same thing, JTR identity, the reason we don't like the diary is because we don;t think it does this and like other high profile thoeries distracts from whats important (well it sure distracts me as im a sado!!)
Will the University sack John O. if the diary is true (i'd hope not!)
As i don't have a livlihood, pretty sure the SLC will keep sending my loan diary or no diary.
Thanks for the concern all the same!
and finally,
'How sad they must call into question the integrity of so many scientists to maintain what must be in effect a meagre income. They must hope to keep their egos intact'
ahem,
I certainly do respect science. there is no scientific evidence of any kind that James Maybrick was jack The Ripper,
just thought we'd clear that up!
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1963
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
oh Hi John,
our posts must have overlapped so i take the coterie thing back!!
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Mr Poster
If RSC's review process is not enough for you, then I recomend you stop taking all drugs available today, as pretty much all of them and the means for certifying their purity went through the same review process. You can use meditation or something for your next headache.
I'm afraid I'm disappointed by the rather hysterical tone of your reaction to my short factual posting, which I had hoped would alert you to the fact that a number of people from both sides of the diary argument are sceptical about McNeil's ion migration technique.
(The same should now be evident to you from R. J. Palmer's post, though I guess you probably hadn't seen it when you replied to mine. If you register with the site, this time-lag problem will be eliminated.)
It seems self-evident that the technique is at least controversial, and as far as I can see the authors of the review article - and possibly the referees too - were unaware that this was the case.
As a scientist, shouldn't your reaction be to take a dispassionate look at both sides of the question, rather than just going on the attack in this way? (Surely you'd agree that in general the litigious nature of American society doesn't prevent a lot of bad science getting through the peer review process.)
There may well be scope for further scientific testing of the diary, but this particular technique has already been applied, has failed to be replicated by another worker, and has had serious doubts expressed about it by a number of people, including its own originator.
Chris Phillips
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 445
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 7:35 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster,
Regarding the handwriting of James Maybrick. Any forger who had gone to the lengths that anti-diarists assume they went to would surely have made some effort to match up Maybricks handwriting? It just doesnt make sense to be so in-depth in some aspects (the symptoms of arsenic addiction etc. etc. ) and miss out on something so obvious.
Others have already made the valid point that the Diary does not display a great deal of fidelity to the known facts, but as was discussed some time ago to write the Diary in a hand quite alien to known Maybrick exemplars is actually quite cunning.
Any good document examiner would likely detect the many differences between Maybrick's hand and that of even a masterly forger given the amount of writing involved. And, even if the forgery could be sustained, the game wouldn't be worth the candle. Any forger that good could be set for life dashing off a few lines from someone whose holgraphic jottings would be worth a fortune.
However, to write the Diary in a totally different, though consistent, hand would always allow for just the sort of arguments we are presented with. That is, MPD, the effects of drugs and poisons, and so on. Were there not so many textual anachronisms and problem phrases such a tactic might just have worked.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1497
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
So many textual anachronisms? Are you just assuming this is the case because John Omlor has said it a million times?
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. 
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. Yet I am regularly criticised for having no 'position' to state. It's a good thing I don't get downhearted easily.
Love,
Caz
X |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
