|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2058
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 3:22 am: | 
|
Actually I said it, and though i forget quite why, i don't support the diary, so, sorry about that
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Lonely Guy
Sergeant
Username: Lonelyguy
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 3:43 am: |
|
Hi Jenni...
support the diary or not it's still the most sensible thing I have heard said about the diary here!
Robert
catch me if you can
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Hi Lonely Guy,
I'm glad you have stayed around.
I'd like to ask, sincerely, if you would be willing to give us the evidence that makes you think the diary might be real?
It's been sometime since anyone on the boards has said such a thing and been willing to offer any actual evidence in favor of authenticity (since Peter Wood, I think). So it would be interesting to hear what leads you to think the real James Maybrick had anything to do with this book or these murders.
Thanks, and I look forward to discussing all of this with you.
All the best,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Hi Chris P,
You have been busy - or someone has. I can't think why the readers would be remotely interested in my thoughts from five years ago, whether they've altered substantially since then or not. But perhaps I should be flattered that they appear to matter so much to you. So thanks for taking the time and trouble to give them a fresh airing. 
I still think the 'old forgery' theory lacks credibility, but then again I still think the modern hoax conspiracy theories lack it even more! And it's still obvious to all of us that the diary handwriting doesn't resemble Maybrick's authenticated hand.
But let's face facts. You don't know where or when this document originated, who wrote it or what motivated its author. No one here does - you are all guessing, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if I don't want to join in the guessing games, while the investigation continues, there's nothing wrong with that either.
Hi John,
...which several people reported showed no signs of bronzing when it first appeared...
You seem to have missed the discussion I had with RJ, in which I pointed out that it hadn't been established that anyone had actually 'reported', prior to Voller, that they'd looked for bronzing and found no signs.
Baxendale merely observed in 1992 that the writing hadn't gone brown in colour, as most late 19th century inks do with age - which is pretty meaningless since the writing still wasn't brown in 1995, when Voller reported 'barely visible' bronzing, and then only in a few specific places.
Your words show how easily misconceptions can creep in and become accepted fact. So can you name the 'several people' and quote from their work where they 'reported' seeing no signs of bronzing? Or are you assuming more than the available information entitles you to assume?
You will of course be the first to acknowledge the importance of deadly accuracy and attention to detail regarding every aspect of this new and exciting proposal to discover whether the ink's appearance has been changing ever since the diary first emerged.
Let's try to get it all absolutely right this time, shall we?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 30, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Caroline,
You can agree or disagree with the following account and we can debate it until doomsday. Or we could just have the examinations and see what we learn.
"In July 1992, Dr. David Baxendale examined the Diary handwriting line-by-line using a Zeiss binocular-microscope. At that time not the slightest trace of age-bronzing was found. Yet this phenomenon should have been present in an iron-based ink that was years old, certainly in one said to have been applied in 1888-9. Following that, in October 1992 Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh also saw no signs of age-bronzing.
"The next examination of the Diary pages took place in August 1993, and was conducted by Warner Books' commissioned examiners. The members of this team were free to express their independent views. Neither Kenneth Rendell, Dr. Joe Nickell, Maureen Casey Owens, or Robert Kuranz saw any signs of age-bronzing. And my own limited examination of the Diary pages, in October 1993, led to the same conclusion.
"In December 1994 an examination by surgeon Nick Warren led him to write to Robert Smith and underscore the signficance of this lack of age-bronzing. Smith replied; AGREED to the absense of bronzing buy tried to minimise its value as evidence, saying: "Neither Dr. Eastaugh...nor Leeds University, nor Robert AH Smith Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Museum, found a problem with the colour of the ink." -- M. Harris
Now, as I understand it, a transcript or tape of Alec Voller's subsequent examination of the ink is available. So all RJ is suggesting is that we use it to go back and look at the lines he was describing and see what they look like years later.
That sounds like a fine idea to me. Why not?
Hoping, as always, just to learn more about the document,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1608
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Hi AAD,
The tests that should be done are those to identify the chemical constituents in the ink.
Am I missing something here? Didn't Dr Eastaugh test the ink for its chemical as well as elemental composition? And didn't the Rendell team, regardless of their final conclusions, endorse Eastaugh's analyses of the ink?
Since Eastaugh found nothing about the ink that conflicted with a date of 1888/9, what are the chances of a repeat test producing the opposite result? And if it produced the same result, how many more identical tests would be demanded and rejected as unsatisfactory?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Caroline,
Yes, you are missing something. The date of Dr. Easthaugh's test and the precise nature of its conclusions and the alternative tests performed that produced contradictory results and the nature of state of the art labs today and the need for at the very least a thorough investigation into the possibility of resolving those conflicts.
And a few other things, but that'll do for now.
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
First of all, if you hadn't posted all the messages above pretending that what I'd said was misleading, there would have been no need for my correspondent, Robert McLaughlin, to go to the trouble of finding the evidence.
Sadly I've seen too much on these boards to expect a retraction or correction from you, let alone an apology!
You don't know where or when this document originated, who wrote it or what motivated its author. No one here does - you are all guessing, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if I don't want to join in the guessing games, while the investigation continues, there's nothing wrong with that either.
But the odd thing is that - despite your previous denials - thanks to Robert McLaughlin we know that in the past you did feel able to reach certain conclusions about the diary. Namely:
(1) You concluded that Maybrick was not the author.
(2) You considered the evidence for a modern hoax involving Anne Barrett was strong enough that the onus was on her defenders to put their case. And until this had been done to everyone's complete satisfaction (!), the "old forgery" theory would lack credibility.
For the benefit of those who spend time reading your numerous and lengthy contributions here - not to mention those who paid good money for the book you co-wrote on the subject - could you clarify whether your views on these questions have in fact changed since then, and if so why?
Or do you just find it more convenient to pretend that you never reached those conclusions in the first place?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Hi John,
Yes it is a fine idea of RJ's, and I can't wait for the results to appear here.
Now without referring to Melvin's claims this time, and assuming stuff that isn't there, who are the 'several people' you say actually 'reported' that they looked for signs of bronzing before 1995 and saw none?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 30, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Caroline,
I'm confused. Are you saying all the people named in the narrative above did not look for bronzing or did see some and that this was all just lies?
If that's what you believe, fine, I'm not going to argue about that reading of yours here. But you asked for names and there they are.
Shall we go around again?
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
For God's sake, Chris!
What do you mean, a retraction, correction or apology?
You kept on about some 'pet theory' of mine about the diary being created in the 1970s, so I wasn't 'pretending' what you said was misleading - I genuinely didn't remember, and still don't, ever having such a 'pet theory'. If you can find evidence that I did, fine. I will have to accept that I had some kind of brainstorm.
I wouldn't consider that any of those old quotes of mine amounted to reaching any definite conclusions about anything.
If that's the impression I gave, I didn't mean to. What was ambiguous about:
I would like the mystery solved?
And what was wrong with admitting then, as I do now, that the 'old forgery' theory lacks credibility, and anyone arguing for it would have their work cut out?
And in case you missed it the first time:
I still think the modern hoax conspiracy theories lack it [credibility] even more! And it's still obvious to all of us that the diary handwriting doesn't resemble Maybrick's authenticated hand.
You can read my various views on the subject, past and present, as well as anyone else. Ripper Diary was not concerned with the co-authors' views, so I don't see why that's relevant. The basic facts and testimony won't alter, even if some of our opinions change over time.
Anyway, I don't know why my views matter so much; they are just my views, and if you change yours at any time, I promise not to be offended in the slightest. I think it's a healthy sign in general.
And of course, you can't possibly be worried that people might be influenced by my views, or heaven forbid, actually agree with any of them - can you? 
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Hi John,
I'm saying that there are no references in anything I've read on these boards to anyone reporting in writing that they looked for signs of bronzing during their various examinations and found none.
If the reports don't mention bronzing at all (and you don't know if they do or they don't), it cannot simply be assumed that bronzing was one of the features that was looked for in the diary writing.
That's all.
Love,
Caz
X
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 560
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
My friends, if I might interject. Arguments based on secondary sources or...worst... interpretations of secondary sources.... or...at best....interpretations of primary sources....without all parties having direct access to the primary documents in question....is..forgive me....a tedious waste of time. In the legal game they call the concept 'discovery'...we ought not bring the matter into the courtroom without having the documentation. I, the jury, have no way of knowing who's pulling my leg, Melvin (the prosecution) or Caz (the defense) unless I know what their statements are based on. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
I wouldn't consider that any of those old quotes of mine amounted to reaching any definite conclusions about anything.
Amazing - even for you!
I realise you've raised selective quotation and diversionary tactics to something of an art form on these boards, but even for you this is something of a tour de force.
Of course it wasn't the bit you quote that I found significant ("I would like the mystery solved?"), it was the statement before that:
I don't believe the diary was James Maybrick's ...
And this is a far stronger statement than the one you disingenuously quote now ("it's still obvious to all of us that the diary handwriting doesn't resemble Maybrick's authenticated hand."), because we all remember the lengths you've gone to with all the innuendo about the appearance of people's handwriting changing under the influence of drugs, or excitement, or whatever.
Anyhow, please be warned that Robert McLaughlin was indeed very industrious, and what I've quoted so far was only a small part of what he sent me.
For example - as you seem to persist in denying you had concluded that the diary wasn't written by Maybrick - what about this?
I am in the strange position of believing the diary to be a fake, yet remaining totally unconvinced that Mike Barrett could have had much of a hand in it.
[14 December 1999]
Or this?
The discussion here has been concerned with who physically did or did not sit down and write the diary. I don't believe anyone is disputing the fact that Maybrick didn't do it.
[25 March 2000]
Please credit the people reading this board with some intelligence, and at least have the honesty to acknowledge that five years ago you believed the diary wasn't genuine - and were willing to state that publicly.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Yes, RJ.
That's why I said Caroline and I could argue about her interpretation of this until doomsday and why I likened it to an endless dance and why I said I did not want to debate her about her interpretation of the narrative I posted, which cites the names she was asking me about and does testify that they reported seeing no bronzing but certainly does not say whether or not they did so "in writing" as Caroline now asks about. Perhaps they did. Let's go find out. I have at least one person I can ask. And I will.
Still, time wasting arguments are our specialty here, after all, and always have been.
In any case, in the end, it's best just to see exactly what Voller has said and see what the pages and those lines he discussed look like now.
Best of luck with that,
--John (who has heard the music stop) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
"Robert McLaughlin was indeed very industrious"
I was poking around the Casebook looking for Robert McLaughlin and Google produced this in one search, although it doesn't look like it's connected to him in anyway.
Just curious - is anyone familiar with this article? My guess would be it's tied to the Openshaw letter, but you never know what strange things one might find in Diary World.
TOC, Vol. 36
... "Jack the Ripper - Microscopist?", John Gustav Delly, p. 363 Letters to the
Editor,
www.mcri.org/Toc36.html
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
lol Hold that thought....the issue is from 1988...or is it 1888?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2062
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Am I missing something here? Didn't Dr Eastaugh test the ink for its chemical as well as elemental composition? And didn't the Rendell team, regardless of their final conclusions, endorse Eastaugh's analyses of the ink?
Since Eastaugh found nothing about the ink that conflicted with a date of 1888/9, what are the chances of a repeat test producing the opposite result? And if it produced the same result, how many more identical tests would be demanded and rejected as unsatisfactory?
Hi everyone!
I agree with this. what is it exactly you mean when you mention a full chemical anaylsis of the ink? Of course i don't see any reason one is not possible, i am just curious as to what it could achieve, and to what exactly you had in mind. i ask to anyone who is listening what tests did Eastaugh do, what is different about modern tests that could tell us anything different.
thank you!
Jenni
ps yes this is me being nice!!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Easthaugh not only did that analysis some considerable time ago, but the findings were contradicted by the findings of other chemical analyses that were also conducted on ink samples. You can see the contradictions in one of the Harris dissertations on the Casebook.
Consequently, it seems only logical that the possibility of a full and thorough set of new chemical tests using the latest technologies in order to resolve these contradictions should be rigorously investigated.
When I spoke with the director of McCrone labs a couple of years back, he agreed that this was one possible, fruitful area of pursuit for testing, especially as it would seem that there were already specific results which were not in agreement and which could be used as a basis for retesting to resolve the discrepancies.
My guess is that this is still true and perhaps even moreso as yet another couple of years has passed and the technology has been given even more time to improve. Surely, that's one of the avenues that should now be being pursued if we want to learn everything we can about the document, right?
Hopeful that it is indeed being investigated,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
One footnote.
All those interested to see why a full, thorough and rigorous set of new tests on the ink should be undertaken in an attempt to solve the problems and conflicts that exist in the current results should read THE MAYBRICK HOAX: A FACT-FILE FOR THE PERPLEXED by Melvin Harris 4/97 located in the Dissertations section. The first full section is on "The Diary Ink." You can quickly see why work still needs to be done using the latest technologies in an independent lab.
I'm glad a new regime of testing has started. I look forward to what it accomplishes.
All the best,
--John
PS: The documents attached to that dissertation should also be examined as you decide whether or not new tests could still help. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 562
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 8:20 pm: |
|
John--it sometimes dawns on me that the diary 'debate' itself is part of the dynamic, part of the reason the 'solution' isn't at hand; because of the curious circumstances under which the diary was composed, and later brought to the public, the fiercer the inquiry, the less likely the solution. part of this is because the 'skeptics', while fundamentally perceptive, have misjudged the diary 'saga' from a human angle. the diary's creation, i think, can be understood in human terms, but 'exposing' it per se, almost borders on the counter-productive. (if this doesn't make sense, i can email you privately) rjp |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
I think I understand just what you mean, and I have often had similar thoughts myself.
But send me e-mail and explain and I'll see if we're thinking in the same way.
All the best,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
Hi John
I have continued to think on what is to be gained from chemical analisis of the ink and one nagging question keeps coming back.
Is there enough known about the chemical structure of inks from medieval times through to modern times, on a world wide basis, to know what was in what type of ink in what part of the world at what time?
I mean, does anyone have an enchiclopidia (you'll have to forgive my spelling) which lists every type of ink, its chemical constituants and where and when it was made.
If a scientist comes up with a diffinative answer..what is in the Diary ink.
Surely it is then still down to interpretation by an expert of when the expert beleives ink with this type of chemical make up would have been made, by whom and who might have used it.
If the Diary was forged by someone with considerable know-how, surely he simply could have used ink which chemically is consistant with inks of Victorian era. (sorry if am stating the obvious)
Simply knowing the chemical constituants of the ink therefore will never prove anything as it always comes back to interpretation of these results by someone with experiance in ink, when it was possibly made, who might have mixed it etc. If we dont have a diffinative catalogue of inks then results will always be open to question.
Surely the inorganic route, testing though radioative particles and radium makes more sense...just thinking out loud really.. but the latest test results do seem to show that some thought still needs to be given to what your looking for, what you are trying to achieve. A diary created by a good forger can still be consistant with 1889 and be consistant with being a modern forgery.
What we all want is a difinative answer, what date did the ink get placed on the page? and an answer which is scientifically indisputable and does not allow for human interpretation.
Does any one know ye of such a test?
Because from what I've researched the wonders of science are still fatally in the hands of human beings and the tendency to interpretation and error.
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1616
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 6:57 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
...we ought not bring the matter into the courtroom without having the documentation.
Precisely - which is why I pointed out to John that without the necessary documentation he couldn't assume (from what Melvin wrote and you posted) that anyone had 'reported' seeing no bronzing.
Look at it this way. No one here can say that the bronzing Voller saw in 1995 wasn't there when others had previously examined the writing - unless it has been reported by at least one of the examiners that they looked at every line of the diary to see if there were any signs of bronzing, and found none.
If it was considered important to do this, I can't think of a single good reason why such a pains-taking exercise and its results would not have been recorded among the other observations. Maybe it was, but John certainly doesn't appear to know either way.
If it wasn't considered an important enough exercise, then there is now no way of knowing whether the very slight bronzing that Voller saw was there in 1992 but not looked for and therefore not noticed.
Hi Chris P,
So everyone who can read will now know, if they didn't before, that five years ago I posted my belief at the time that the diary owned by Robert Smith was not written by James Maybrick.
Big deal. Get over it.
If I choose not to repeat something I said five years ago, or two years ago, or two days ago, for whatever reason, that's entirely up to me.
It should make a refreshing change from one person I could mention, who feels he has to repeat the same words over and over and over and over again - for fear someone at the back might not be paying enough attention to his views.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
I've already told RJ and Caroline that I'm not going to argue about her reading of Melvin's account. And I'm certainly not going to argue about who was or was not going to argue about Melvin's account. That's too absurd even for me, even here in Diary World, but I do love the idea.
Chris,
Nice job presenting the history. Even if it produced an entirely gratuitous and pointless and unrelated attack on me for some reason. It's good to know the record is clear and you were right originally in what you said.
Jeff,
From what I was told by the scientists several years ago, the tests that analyzed the ink in terms of its chemical ingredients could indeed tell us a number of important things and could certainly at least resolve the conflicts that already exist between sets of results in this case. And that would be a step forward in learning what we can about the document. And, as well, it is always possible that they could assist in further dating the ink. The McCrone people did say that also. And yes, the sort of records of samples you ask about do indeed exist. They were less confident about testing when the ink went on the paper (as every lab has been since the beginning). Those tests seem far less likely to show anything definitive or useful. I think most of us have agreed upon that for some time.
But surely we can all also agree on at least one thing. A rigorous investigation into exactly what we can learn about this document using ALL of the latest technology should be undertaken and the book should be given as thorough a set of tests as possible, since it remains clearly a suspicious artefact. That's what I hope is beginning to happen, and that's why I'm looking forward to whatever we learn.
Investigations, like sharks, should always keep moving.
Happy that this one is,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 31, 2005) |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Hi John
My understanding is, as you say, that tests should be able to clear up any contradictions in past analisis of ink and that the current means available are considerably better than when these tests were originally carryied out. My fears are that without accurate records on inks and constituants of inks over the last hundred years it still might be difficult to date the diary conclusively. My understanding is that records on inks from different times and places may not be as comprehensive as you think. Its not the scientists that are the problem its interpretation of the results they give us.
The worst thing to do would to produce another set of inconclusive results. So some thought needs to be given to what would be the best way forward. A group of scientists may have to examine the document and carry out preliminaries just to figure out what is the best way forward. I dont beleive just charging in and doing more tests for the sack of tests is necessarily the best way forward- even if it might make good tele.
You need to be clear about what your testing for and what it will prove. As I understand there are a number of tests available but the correct test for one document may not be the same as another (Lets say the Vineland map which your freind seemed very interested in doing more on).
All I'm saying is that as long as human interpretation is the key to authentification (or other wise) then a diffinative answer (which as you say we are in agreement about wanting to find) might be elusive.
The problem is coming up with money for preliminary inspection which might take some time and offer back nothing..
Oh well better get back to work...catch you alll later..Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
In a sense, I think you might contradict yourself a bit early on in your post, although I agree with most of what you say.
You say,
"My understanding is, as you say, that tests should be able to clear up any contradictions in past analisis of ink and that the current means available are considerably better than when these tests were originally carryied out."
And I agree with this and my own experience with the scientists tells me this would be very possible.
And then you say,
"The worst thing to do would to produce another set of inconclusive results. So some thought needs to be given to what would be the best way forward."
First, I'm not sure this would indeed be the worst thing. We've had plenty of such results before and no doubt will again, and they are part of the process. The worst thing to do would be not to run the tests at all. But that's not my point.
If you agree that it appears the current contradictions in the existing results could be cleared up by thorough tests using the latest technologies, as the scientists have suggested, then that would indeed be at least one conclusive step forward. Even if it did not once and for all give an exact date to the diary, it would have solved at least one set of mysteries and added significantly to our body of knowledge about the document, and that is always a very good thing and what everyone wants after all.
Then, on top of that, the fact that these same procedures might also help us date the ink would just be an added benefit, making it even more compelling to investigate them.
Then, admirably, you say this:
"A group of scientists may have to examine the document and carry out preliminaries just to figure out what is the best way forward."
And I agree completely and wholeheartedly with this idea. In fact, it's exactly what I was told by several scientists several different times. It is of course the responsible and appropriate thing to do. I have always said so. This would be a crucial part of any investigation into the details of further testing, and until it's done we can't say anything for sure about what might or might not be possible. I think this is a fine point you have made here.
Finally, don't assume coming up with the funds for a series of such preliminary analyses is a terrible problem. We can discuss this in private, but I think you'd be surprised at what's possible in that regard.
I wish you the best of luck. Much of what you say makes sense to me.
All the best,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 787
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
So everyone who can read will now know, if they didn't before, that five years ago I posted my belief at the time that the diary owned by Robert Smith was not written by James Maybrick.
Thank you for acknowledging that.
Now the crucial question is this:
Do you still believe the diary was not written by James Maybrick?
Chris Phillips
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris,
I see that you seem to be the sage on matters of Maybrick or the dairy.I have a relatively obscure question and was thinking you may be able to help me.I am assuming you have read the diary transcription, and know it well. I have a question regarding Maybrick and the content of the dairy.I dont have time to explain to you just yet, but I am working on something. Does Maybrick , in any part of his life , or the diary, mention Demons or anything at all relating Demonic mythology. Any obscure reference to demonic myths, or hell, is all I am after at this stage.If you know of any could you please tell me what they are.This would be a great help, I am after anything. I will explain later . Thankyou.
Thanks Stuart |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:27 am: |
|
Hello
Seeing as we seem to be back to the testing....
Bronzing. Can someone tell me if bronzing is the corrosion of paper by the ink (I assume the bronzing is therefore "around'" the ink), or the discolouration of the ink with time (in which case the bronzing is "on" the ink) ?
And if it produced the same result, how many more identical tests would be demanded and rejected as unsatisfactory?
Analytical chemistry has many well defined systems for determing how many samples/analyses are required to fulfill statistical requirements as to probabilities etc.
Consequently, it seems only logical that the possibility of a full and thorough set of new chemical tests using the latest technologies in order to resolve these contradictions should be rigorously investigated.
I agree with this. Isolated tests prove nothing as any student can tell. Do many tests according to the usual constraints of analytical science (blanks, replicates, splits, spikes, both blind and known).
Use new methods if possible but only use them in a way that cannot be viewed as ambiguous (ie. validated "new" methods applied as for the standard tests).
Some one mentioned a black powder found in the margins of the diary. Assuming it is charcoal, then that should be analysed for metals and organics. Not saying it would be conclusive or prove anything, but it would be very interesting to see if it did contain arsenic or whatever. Curiosity.
mr Poster |
estephanc
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
This is a message to all those who believe that everything is possible, that what is written should not necessarily be read as it is written, that a myriad of alternative explanations might explain erroneous statements and that motivations and meanings can never be gleaned from the observable written word. Could I please join your world? It sounds like fun. For example:
"I wouldn't go out with you if you were the last man on Earth" quickly becomes "I always thought you were a love-god. Let's skip the wining and dining and get straight to the hot sex", and
"No, I'm sorry your loan has not been approved" patently means "I don't think half a million is really enough for you - after all we're a bank and we've got lots to spare. No need to pay it back, either"
Eugene |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:23 am: |
|
In answer to the question "...why can't the people who denounce it do the same???", the simple response is because it's an obvious modern hoax. Trouble is people with limited knowledge have been badly misled by others, including some who should know better. An old saying springs to mind, "Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Hi All,
As I've said before, the chap from McCrone admitted in writing that, to his knowledge, there was no reliable method of determining when a document such as the diary was written.
If the situation has changed since he wrote this, and anyone has more recent information, in writing, that the latest technology could give a reliable indication of whether or not the diary could have been written as far back as 1888, let them speak now or hold their peace.
I can't for the life of me work out how it's going to help, to find out once and for all which elements - which have all been with us forever - are in the diary ink eg sodium, iron, or whatever. We need to be able to ascertain if the ink, when it was applied to the paper, contained an ingredient that can be conclusively proved not to have been knocking around when Maybrick was.
What any potential investors will want to know is whether the latest technology is up to the job of detecting and identifying an incriminating ingredient, if any are present in the ink. They will also need to be open-minded, because if they don't believe such an ingredient is in the ink waiting to be found, or if they aren't confident that the scientists will find it if it's there, they are unlikely to consider it a worthwhile investment.
Marvellous if the ingredient is there, and can be detected and measured; even more terrific if the results can be repeated independently; the cream on top if the scientific 'experts' agree that the ingredient couldn't have been in 1880s ink. We could all stop debating and do wonderful work for "chairidy" in the time we'd save.
But of course, if no such ingredient is found, or if the results prove inconclusive for any reason, we will be left with three possibilities and no nearer a resolution:
1) The ingredient is there, but the tests are still not sophisticated enough to find it and identify it to the satisfaction of those qualified to comment.
2) The ingredient is not there, because the diary author had the luck or good judgement not to use an ink that could catch him/her out.
3) The ingredient is not there, because the document is genuinely old.
In short, such tests could only help if a hoaxer used an ink that is provably incompatible with a late Victorian version.
In the end it will be entirely up to personal investors - of time and money - to judge for themselves whether this aspect of the ongoing investigation, if adopted along the lines proposed, could be a bit like searching for the Holy Grail.
Hi Stuart,
I don't recall any specific references to demons or demonic myths in connection with the suspect document or the real Maybrick. So I apologise for not being much help. I haven't read the entire diary through recently, so you may find something by doing that yourself.
The diary does seem to me to portray 'Sir Jim' as a man whose battle with his inner demons becomes increasingly frightful until self-destruct mode is reached.
And I do believe the real Maybrick's self-destruct button was finally pushed - by accident or design - when he stopped taking his 'medicinal' arsenic.
Hi Eugene,
Do you mean like when Mike Barrett said he wrote the diary, or knew a man/woman who did, he really meant:
"I'm the diary author, and so's my wife."
I'd love to be able to detect motivation from the written word. Apparently, it's obvious to certain people that I'm only writing here because of all the lovely money I'm earning - or hoping to earn - from keeping the diary alive, when I should be spending it all on tests that would surely kill it stone dead.
Hi AAD,
It's easy to throw accusations about when no one knows who you are, isn't it? The trouble is, it's a two-edged sword, because the opinions of the anonymous don't count as either qualified or informed.
If you really cared about these people 'with limited knowledge' you claim are being conned, you would throw off your cloak of anonymity and fill in the gaps for them, in a scholarly manner, so they would not fail to see things as you do.
As things stand, how is anyone meant to know from the content of your posts whether they'd be wiser to take your lead or to ignore you completely?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 04, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
So much for Caroline's suggestion about us not relying on second hand interpretations of first hand works.
Caroline is deliberately misleading you all when she writes:
"...the chap from McCrone admitted in writing that, to his knowledge, there was no reliable method of determining when a document such as the diary was written."
I've read that letter and that's not exactly what it says.
I challenge her to reprint the full text of it here on the boards and then argue that this is his precise conclusion.
Let's see if that happens.
As for her delightful responses to all the other posters here, well I think Eugene has figured out exactly how to read them.
Looking forward to the written statement's full text being here soon,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
So without reprinting the full text, you are expecting your readers to accept your own interpretation that Joseph Barabe didn't actually mean there was 'no reliable method' - it just came out that way and the rest of the letter tells you that he wrote one thing but meant another.
Forgive me for wondering how much reliance you are hoping will be put on your interpretation of an unpublished letter, when you spent so much of your time up until recently publicly misreading a situation to the extent that your personal interpretation of other people's words and motives and intentions could not have been more adrift from reality.
Anyway, back to basics: if anyone has anything in writing that indicates that Barabe's 'no reliable method' statement was either incorrect, misleading or out of date (or significantly modified by the context in which it was written), and - ideally - describes a test, using the latest technology, that could succeed where previous tests have failed, in showing up an incriminating substance (if there are any in the diary ink), I'm all ears.
Otherwise, it's just words without substance.
New tests have to test for something. What will they be testing for this time around, and why? I think we need a little more than vague hints about what 'might be possible' scientifically speaking, from someone who admits his limits when it comes to science.
Love,
Caz
X
PS By the way, are we talking about the same letter from Barabe? Just wondered.
(Message edited by caz on April 05, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Hey, anyone notice what was missing in all that?
Yup.
The text of the letter.
Let's see it, Caroline. You mentioned it. So let's see the full text. Surely you aren't worried that people might read the whole thing and come to their own conclusions, are you?
So, since you invoked it here, do the fair and proper thing and put it up for us to see. Then, once we've all actually had a chance to read it, we can discuss its words -- all of them.
This was, after all, exactly the point you made to RJ a while back about not relying on second hand versions of first hand documents in a discussion. Right? So put the document itself up and give everyone a chance to see the whole thing.
You have nothing to lose. Do you?
And then I'll also be able to answer your cryptic PS.
Now waiting,
--John
|
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
The tests were done by AFI years ago. Chloroacetamide was present in the ink samples. Ergo it was a modern ink. Forget the apologists nonsense about the flawed Leeds test and chloroacetamide being around in Victorian times and possibly in the paper. It was a constituent of the ink period. To gainsay that is to cast aspersions on Dr Diana Simpson's careful testing. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Hi AAD,
So Mr. Nobody thinks John's call for new ink tests are a waste of time then?
And it's ok for Mr. Nobody to cast aspersions on Professor John C. Roberts of UMIST, who concluded AFI's identification was worthless, and Alec Voller, who concluded the diary ink wasn't Diamine?
The amount of chloroacetamide AFI reported finding in the dried ink seems far too small to be compatible with the 0.26% in pre-1992 liquid Diamine. When you consider this ink was 92.08% water, and chloroacetamide is supposed to be a preservative, you'd think the proportion in the dried ink would have been considerably greater, not considerably smaller. But John and I both fight a losing battle with the science.
Hi John,
You're missing the point. I have nothing to lose either way.
You are the one claiming that Barabe didn't write that, to his knowledge, there is no reliable method of determining when a document was written; or that the context shows he didn't mean that.
You also claim to have read the letter in which Barabe didn't write that, or didn't mean that. So you are in a terrific position to prove exactly what he did mean and help your case - whatever it is.
The thing is, I'm not sure why it would be better for you if Barabe hadn't meant what he wrote. You see, you have always maintained that no reputable lab would - or could - guarantee beforehand that they could date the diary. And that, as far as I can see, is more or less all Barabe was saying - ie that no lab, as far as he knew, had a reliable [guaranteed] way of determining when [dating] a document [the diary] was written.
It seems everyone is actually in agreement that there are no labs, and no tests (or weren't when Barabe wrote that letter) that guarantee to be able to date a document such as the diary.
What I have yet to see is something - anything - you have in writing from a qualified scientist that supports your claim that there are tests available that might 'possibly resolve the question of authenticity'.
This is the big one. The question of authenticity could only be resolved if:-
a) the ink post-dates 1888
b) there is something in the ink, or about the ink, that could prove it post-dates 1888
c) a testing method exists that might be able to expose b)
So do you, or do you not, have anything in writing that suggests a new and improved state-of-the-art chemical analysis is available that could help fulfill the requirement in c), provided of course that a) and b) apply?
If not, what exactly is your evidence that new ink tests could at least settle the question of authenticity?
The testing ball's in your court - it has been for a very long time. If you drop it again this time, the least of your worries will be that I get to call you Butterfingers.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Where's the letter?
Caroline brought it up. Caroline was the first to claim something about what it says.
So where is it?
Why won't she put it up?
Where is the text to support her original reading and her initial claim about Dr. Barabe's position?
She is softening her position about what it claims even as we speak, of course -- now saying only that Joe would not guarantee results in advance and this was his point in the letter. Perhaps this is closer to the truth than her original phraseology, which had him saying simply that "there was no reliable method of determining when a document such as the diary was written."
Let's see.
Let's see the text Caroline.
You brought this letter up, you invoked it, let's see it. All of it. The full text.
Also, what about the question of solving the contradictions that currently exist in the test results -- surely that in itself would teach us more about the document. And isn't that what we're all supposed to want?
A full chemical analysis using state of the art technology and directed towards the old contradictory reports we already have could solve those conflicts, at the very least.
But now the issue has changed. Now the issue is whether Caroline will support the reading she originally offered here by putting up the full text of the letter so that we can compare it with her original sentence concerning what it said.
I wonder if there is anything in the text that suggests the lab might want to get a look at the document before it says what might or might not be possible for sure. You don't suppose that could be hinted at, do you? I wonder if it mentions analyzing the ink not to determine when it was put on paper but for other useful reasons.
Well, Caroline? You brought it up here, you made the original claim. Support it. Bring forward the letter and post the full text here.
Otherwise, how will we know whether your original claim was either accurate or valid?
Let's see the text, Caroline. As you say, you have nothing to lose.
Still waiting,
--John (on an empty court, thankfully)
(Message edited by omlor on April 06, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
So John, I assume you have nothing in writing from a qualified scientist that explains why a further chemical analysis of the ink would be 'useful' enough to tempt potential investors of time and money.
I still don't see how another test is even going to iron out previous contradictions. It could only support the results of one or more previous tests, or provide further contradictions. And in either case, how would you judge it to be any more reliable than all the tests that have gone before, which you considered unsatisfactory?
And nothing you have posted provides evidence that the question of authenticity could be settled by new ink tests. Has any scientist actually written as much to you, or was this something you were hoping might be the case?
I will probably be away from the boards now until the week after next, so I'll leave that one with you.
Looking forward to seeing details on my return of something new and original that the scientists can try.
Causing happiness not wherever I go, but whenever...
Enjoy being off the hook for a while.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
Where's the letter, Caroline?
You come here. You tell us there's a letter. You tell us in quite clear and decisive terms what it says, but you don't produce the letter.
Where is it?
Why won't you let us see it?
What are you afraid will happen if you post it?
You mentioned it, after all. No one else was talking about it. No one else invoked it to prove anything. No one else made their claims here by mentioning it. You did.
You brought it up.
You offered it as a document written by an expert in support of your position.
So where is it?
Why are you going away before you've posted it for all of us to see?
What does the whole text say, exactly? Word for word?
You're the one that cited it as if it said one thing specifically, so let's see the letter. All of it, so we can judge for ourselves.
Wouldn't that be fair?
You yourself made the argument to RJ that we should not rely on second hand readings of first hand reports, and then you brought up this written document over here, so...
Let's see the words, Caroline.
We all want to believe you, so let us decide for ourselves.
Post the letter you cited before you leave.
Please?
STILL waiting,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 814
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:36 pm: |
|
By the way, though it's probably wrong of me, I'm still quite interested in the "numerous fluorescent marks" that were observed "throughout the diary" by Catherine Kneale and Andrew Platt.
Does anyone have any idea what they were?
Do the Figures show whether the marks were made before or after the writing in the diary?
Can the fluorescent substance in the diary be chemically analysed?
If the fluorescent marks turned out to be older than the writing, and the fluorescent substance could be analysed and dated, couldn't that - depending on the dates - be almost as good as dating the writing?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 10:43 pm: |
|
"Can the fluorescent substance in the diary be chemically analysed?"
Great question, and while we at that, let's take a harder look at the black powder in the 'gutter' of the Diary, which Eastaugh said might be bone black. (A potential source of arsenic, apparently.) Is all bone black created equally?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2086
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Hi
Spry tells me the report can now be seen in full here
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/platt.html
thanks
jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Jenni
Thanks for letting us know.
Figure 3, showing the fluorescent marks, isn't terribly clear, but it certainly looks as though the writing could be on top of the fluorescent "stripe" on the left.
Can anyone tell which page this "stripe" is on? (Is it on the first page facing the inside of the front cover, for example?)
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 08, 2005) |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 4:35 am: |
|
Yes I'm a nobody, but I don't really have a problem with that. Unlike some others apparently. Why should they worry? As they say a nobody can be ignored.
The call for new ink tests a waste of time? Essentially, yes, for the reasons given. It seems to be another ploy (will they ever get done?) to keep the diary dream alive.
The invalid argument about the amount of monochloroacetamide found has been trundled out again. Many posts in the past addressed this point and showed that the amount was irrelevant. It was enough that the chemical WAS found. Dr. Simpson also showed in her tests that she had to prepare a DILUTION anyway, which again renders the amount irrelevant. It was suggested that the diary ink had been watered down before it was used also. But with only 0.000583 g. total weight of the black ink spots (including the diary paper to which they were attached) it will be seen how infinitesimally small amounts were involved. The result was that Dr. Diana Simpson MPhil PhD FIFST CEng FIM FRSH CChem FRSC stated that 'the presence of chloroacetamide in the extract of the black dots' was shown.
Obviously this isn't good enough for avid diary believers, but it is good enough for a nobody like me.
The late Melvin Harris many times explained all this here, and it was he, a greater authority than me, who stated, with evidence, that the other tests were flawed. It is interesting to note that Alec Voller (since his name has been invoked) stated of Dr. Simpson's tests "the report by Analysis For Industry presents us with almost a model picture of how an analysis should be conducted and reported."
Why did Mrs. Harrison subsequently ask Dr. Simpson to confirm that the samples which were sent to her by Mr. Harris were in an unsealed packet?
The chloroacetamide in the ink is the telling death-blow to the fake diary (my opinion) and that's without the many other indicators of a modern hoax that John Omlor has so consistently demonstrated here. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
The stripe on the left is, I think, at the point in the diary where the author writes:
I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whores flesh? I believe I will give it a try. It amuses me if nothing else.
It is on page 421 of Shirley's Blake edition.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Caroline,
Nice to see you back.
Any chance you might now be willing to show us all the complete text of the letter you cited earlier?
Just wondering,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
John,
you make me laugh! do you never give up?
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I try often to do the first thing. I try not to do the second.
Still waiting,
--John |
|
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