|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 3:58 am: | 
|
Robert Smith and I are pleased to present a report on a programme of new scientific tests on the Diary, conducted over a period of four months by Dr Andrew Platt, Senior Lecturer in Inorganic Chemistry, Staffordshire University. For technical reasons, the four Figures in the report are omitted, but they are on the CD, which is being sent to Stephen Ryder for permanent archiving on the Casebook.
Dr Platt proposed three testing procedures, using VSC (Video Spectral Comparitor), Infrared microscopy and Raman microscopy.
We introduce his report with:
(a) A brief chronology of how the new tests came about;
(b) A description of Dr Platt’s academic and forensic credentials.
Brief Chronology of the New Tests
6th August 2004
Jenni emails Robert to say she has located science labs, which may be able to conduct new tests on the Diary, and for no charge.
12th August 2004
At Jenni’s request, Robert supplies her with previous scientific reports: three reports written in 1992/3 by Dr Nicholas Eastaugh and the 1993 Rendell report, which she sends to Andrew Platt PhD, Senior Lecturer at Staffordshire University.
2nd September 2004
Dr Platt responds to the previous reports by proposing a set of tests to Jenni using VSC, Infrared microscopy and Raman microscopy. Jenni forwards these proposals to Robert.
16th September 2004
Robert gives the go-ahead for the Diary to be supplied to enable these tests to take place. It is agreed, that there will be no time limits imposed on Dr Platt for the testing process and that the final report will be published in full on the Casebook; also that confidentiality will be maintained during this period.
3rd November 2004
Dr Platt meets Robert and Jenni at Robert’s offices in London, and takes possession of the Diary for testing in the Faculty of Health and Sciences, Staffordshire University.
8th March 2005
Dr Platt’s report is received.
22nd March 2005
Robert and Jenni meet to discuss the report and its publication on the Casebook.
Andrew Platt, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Staffordshire University
My academic background is largely chemical: BSc Chemistry (1st Class Honours) Durham University 1977; PhD Durham University 1980; post doctoral research at Exeter, Leicester and Warwick Universities 1980-1986. I joined the (then) North Staffordshire Polytechnic as a Senior Lecturer in Inorganic Chemistry in 1986.
Since 1999 we have been focussing our teaching primarily on forensic science and I have been involved in all aspects of document analysis since then. My chemical background, particularly, has given me experience in the spectroscopic analysis (infrared and Raman), which I have been carrying out since my PhD work from 1977. I have published 50 articles on chemical research, almost all of which report the results of spectroscopic (and other) measurements.
The department has a range of modern instruments which can be used for the scientific analysis of documents – this is one advantage of being a relatively “young” forensics department.
Report on the work carried out on the “Maybrick Diary” at Staffordshire University between November 2004 and February 2005
Final report on the examination of the
“Maybrick Diary”
In this report we present the findings of the examination of inks from dated documents in the form of entries in a visitors book, and the comparison of their characteristics with those of the ink on the Maybrick diary.
The inks from the visitors book were chosen for examination as their entries were made at the same period as the diary was purported to have been written.
Visual examination
To the naked eye the ink distribution on the diary appears to be non uniform. This is consistent with the document being written using an ink pot and nib rather than with a fountain pen. Since the first patent for a fountain pen in the UK was granted in the 1880’s it is unlikely that they would have been in common use at the time the diary is supposed to have been written.
Optical examination
The VSC instrument utilises a variety of illumination conditions and camera filter settings to analyse the light reflected from a document. The inks in the visitors book exhibited two distinct types of behaviour. The first gave no distinctive response under any combination of illumination and camera filters, whilst some of the inks displayed a weak, but distinct, infrared luminescence as shown below in Figure 1
[Figure 1 omitted]
Figure 1 Infrared fluorescence in an ink dated in the 1880s
This shows a page from a guest book with entries dated in the 1880s. The signature of Mary Robinson fluoresces under the lighting conditions used, namely an illumination with visible light in the wavelength band 630 – 740 nm with a high pass filter set at 850nm to exclude all the reflected light at wavelengths below 850nm. Light above this wavelength falls in the infrared region of the spectrum and is thus not visible to the naked eye. With these filter settings the writing from the adjacent entries in the book are not visible.
The ink that the diary is written with showed no significant features, showing no fluorescence at any settings. By applying higher wavelength filters to the reflected light it was observed that some of the lettering faded at different wavelengths. An example of this is shown in Figure 2.
[Figure 2 omitted]
Figure 2 The different responses of the ink due to varying application density. The page is viewed upside down due to physical constraints of fitting the diary into the instrument.
We attribute this to the higher density of ink deposited on the page, as a result of the nib being replenished by dipping into an ink pot, as discussed under visual examination.
During the examination of the ink numerous fluorescent marks were observed throughout the diary. At present we are unable to explain their nature or origin. Two examples of theses are shown in Figure 3 below
[Figure 3 omitted]
Figure 3 Fluorescent marks observed in the diary itself (left) and on the inside front cover (right)
The optical examination reveals no characteristics that are inconsistent with the diary being written in the 1880s.
Examination by infrared microscopy
The infrared spectra of the ink lines from the visitors book and diary were obtained using an infrared microscope operating in ATR mode. This requires physical contact between the instrument and the object under study. The spectra obtained show the same general characteristics irrespective of the part of the ink line studied or the page sampled. The spectra from the dated entries in the visitors book show essentially identical features. These characteristics are entirely due to the spectrum from the paper itself, and we can find no characteristic peaks that can be attributed to the ink. A typical set of spectra are shown in Figure 4
[Figure 4 omitted]
Figure 4 Comparative infrared spectra of the ink line (upper two traces) and paper
(lower trace) from the Maybrick Diary
This probably arises from the ink applied being absorbed into the body of the paper leaving a very low effective concentration at the surface. Thus any spectrum from the inked area is essentially masked by the strong response from the paper itself. We have observed similar effects with modern fountain pen inks the spectra of which are again typical of the paper that they are applied to.
Raman Microscopy
Raman microscopy is a non invasive non contact method of analysis where light scattered from a low powered laser focussed on the ink line is analysed to give a spectrum. Using a red laser at 685nm we were unable to observe any significant features from the diary ink or from other inks used in the visitors book. The spectra of the ink lines and the paper itself are largely featureless and add no information on the age of the ink.
Conclusion
In summary the examination of the optical, infrared and Raman spectroscopic properties of the ink on the diary have yielded no significant data on the ink itself and are consistent with it having being written either at the purported date or at a more recent date.
Catherine Kneale,
Andrew Platt
Staffordshire University March 2005
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1581
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
Cheers Jenn,
Cue a very long and lengthy debate.
Monty
PS oh and cheers to Robert Smith also.
(Message edited by monty on March 23, 2005)
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 863
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:27 am: |
|
Well done on getting new tests! Sadly, the reports conclude, yet again, with total ambivalence.
It could have been written in 1888, but then again, it could not have? What kind of wishwashy ending statement is that! A pox on you Andrew Platt!!
No, thank you Andrew Platt for donating your time and your attention to this ongoing farce. We appreciate you doing this. Even with the wishy-washy ending statement.
So once again: tests on the diary prove inconclusive. Yay.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Hurrah!
Finally, a new beginning.
It's a very encouraging sign. Well done, Jenni. The whole DiTA world salutes you and these reports will of course be featured in next month's post.
I hope this trend continues and thorough chemical analyses as well as RJ's proposed examinations will soon follow.
  
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Many thanks to Jenni and Robert for beavering away behind the scenes all this time.
If Dr Platt noticed extensive bronzing of the diary ink, he doesn't seem to have mentioned it. That's one issue that has a real chance of being sorted out once and for all, relatively quickly and simply.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 586
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
John,
Major kudos go to Jennifer Pegg for pursuing what many thought was impossible.
I echo Monty's cheers to Robert Smith for agreeing to the tests. The results could have ended up win, lose or draw for his side, and he had no way to know which before he agreed. All the while someone here was taunting him for months with insults claiming that he'd never get the diary tested, he actually was.
So that's one victory for the testing side (even though it came up inconclusive... but then even a more conclusive set of results one way or another would be unlikely to truly settle things) and one major blow against the pigeon-toed, under-growed flyin' purple dragon-poster. What a sight to see.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
I'm thrilled that these three scans have been done. And so is Figment. Even if they weren't able to tell us anything about the date of the writing, at least it's a start.
A thorough state-of-the-art chemical analysis of the diary ink and/or the first-hand visual examination of the bronzing as described by RJ would be excellent next steps.
Let's keep going and learn as much as possible about this artefact. That's what I have always argued, since day one. That's what I'll continue to promote. So onward. A "blow" like this I'll happily take any day.
In good spirits,
--John |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:11 am: |
|
Hi everyone
I also agree that just the fact that new testing was done amounts to a very positive step. The fact that the testing/examination revealed nothing either way in terms of dating is of course disappointing, although Dr. Platt's opinion is nonetheless valuable to add to the information known about the Diary.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 799
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:18 am: |
|
Yes, major thanks to Jenni, you are a star. I imagine it must have been pretty hard to bite your tongue regarding this a few times over the last few months. Disappointing that the tests proved inconclusive but the fact that Robert agreed to them being done speaks volumes about a man whose integrity has been dragged through the mud on here several times. I would have thought the word "sorry" might be appropriate from certain quarters.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
Hi Alan,
The stupid thing is, Robert Smith announced here last year that he would willingly release the diary for tests as soon as a qualified scientist was found to do the work. So it was on the cards that this would have to happen sooner or later, and it will again. The diary has never stopped being investigated, one way or another.
The confident and regularly repeated predictions that we'd all be dead before another lab saw the diary were therefore as illogical as they were inappropriate, from the day Robert made that announcement. Worse, they seem to have come directly from a deep desire to believe the worst about someone, and to spread the cynic's poison as widely as possible.
We can learn from this not to be unduly influenced by the jaundiced views of one poster who has absolutely no way of knowing what is, or what isn't, being done behind the scenes at any one time to progress this most troublesome of investigations.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
And we're back to normal here, I see.
Well, that didn't last long.
Anyway, here's hoping that this is the start of a thorough testing regime.
Happy to see progress,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 24, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:15 am: |
|
Well, thankfully things will never be quite the same again. For one thing, John has one less topic of conversation, since he can't now bang on about the empty labs and a diary owner who can't afford the 'truth' coming out.
I can hear sighs of relief everywhere, and not a single regret to see an end to a particularly tasteless and destructive era.
Have a great Easter everyone. Things is looking up. And I have a feeling the future will just get rosier and rosier. 
Love,
Caz
XX |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Caroline,
You seem to be a bit confused. This is exactly the sort of thing I have always wanted to begin happening. This is the sort of thing I have been arguing in favor of for years and calling for all along and the sort of thing I will continue to promote as desirable. So why should I be anything other than delighted?
And if you think the "tasteless and destructive era" of Diary-time began with me, then you have forgotten an awful lot of your ancient history. I remember what it was like when I first arrived here years ago (you were already here), and it makes these days look positively polite.
Meanwhile, what matters now is that this is not the end of the process, is that this marks only the beginning of a responsible and rigorous new testing regime which includes a state-of-the-art, thorough chemical analysis of the ink and the sort of independent examinations and comparisons with the record recently called for by RJ.
The goal is still what it always has been, learn as much as possible about the document. That hasn't changed for me. I look forward to all the new results.
These particular results may not have been helpful, but that does not mean other tests will not show us important things about when this hoax was created.
Looking forward to this rosy future of which you speak,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 25, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
I didn't say you wouldn't be delighted, did I? I wouldn't presume to know how you are feeling at this moment.
I simply expressed my own delight that you can no longer post, with that previous smug certainty of yours, that the labs had seen the last of the diary years ago.
And the archives are full to bursting with examples that show there can be no confusion over the main thrust of your recent posting history.
As I said, tasteless and destructive - and so completely wrong too.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
This.
Right here.
This sort of largely pointless, circular, irrelevant and utterly silly discussion is a perfect example of why I stopped posting on these threads over a month ago.
Thank goodness for Jenni's fine work and RJ's posts -- at least there have been some new and original things to discuss here. But other than those two, I see nothing new or original here -- just discussions like this one Caroline is now pursuing, quickly reducible to predictably incomplete history and shallow, obvious attempts at bizarre and petty point-scoring.
Nothing I have ever written has been without its deliberate purpose. And I am always delighted when pessimistic predictions I make do not come true.
But this sort of exchange with Caroline, like so many of them that I've had, is a complete waste of time.
So I'm off again until I see another useful moment.
Used to it, but still sad,
----John |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 99
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Hi Jen and Robert
I'd like to add my thanks too for your efforts no matter how disappointing the end result.
John,
You can wriggle all you like but we can all read!
Regards to all,
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 9:02 pm: |
|
Paul,
Then I recommend you do so.
Have a fine weekend,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Hey Paul!
I'm wondering if this argument doesn't remind you of anything:
Shroud of Turin: Theory of Evil Surfaces
A new salvo has been fired in the endless debate over the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, thought by believers to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ since it bears the image of a man with wounds similar to those suffered by him. This time it's from an Idaho English teacher with no scientific training who insists he knows how the piece of linen was made.
Nathan Wilson, 26, first wants you to know this: He is an evangelical Christian. "I'm a Bible-believing Christian who believes in the Resurrection completely without a doubt," he asserted to The Associated Press. That said, he maintains that the cloth is a fake. And he thinks he knows how it was made. He theorizes that a medieval forger or forgers robbed a grave and removed a shroud off the body. They then crucified someone to obtain blood and to study the wounds. "Most likely it involved some real wicked people," Wilson told AP. He published his theory in the magazine Books and Culture, a journal for Christian intellectuals.
(Has an enigma surrounding the Shroud of Turin been solved? Find out why some scientists now insist the 1988 Carbon-14 test that proved this couldn't be Jesus' burial cloth was actually faulty. http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/shroudofturin/shroudofturin&floc=wn-np
He goes on to theorize that the forgers then used glass, paint, and an old cloth to create the shroud. He believes that the forger painted the image of a crucified man on a pane of glass, laid the glass atop the linen cloth, and left both outside for several days in the sun to bleach. The sun would lighten the linen surrounding the glass, but the painted image of the man would remain dark on the cloth. Now he wants to write a novel using this premise.
Look what was recently found on the back of the Turin shroud, the textile that is believed to be burial cloth.
Dan Porter, a shroud expert from New York, told AP that while the theory is ingenious, it could not account for the images on the Shroud of Turin. "A problem with Wilson's hypothesis is that sun bleaching merely accelerates bleaching that will occur naturally as the material is exposed to light," Porter explained to AP. "Eventually, Wilson's sun bleach shroud image will fade into the background as exposure equalizes the bleaching." Besides, he says the shroud has been displayed in bright sunlight for days on end and there has never been any image fading.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
It reminds me of the words "false analogy." But you weren't asking me, were you?
Glad to see the circles are still turning,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
The first outside expert Rendell brought in after being asked to evaluate the Diary was a Shroud expert, a point made clear by Rendell himself.
The analogy is clear to most people: i.e. you can spend a lot of money, run every test known to man, and still have flame wars amongst experts over inconclusive results. I'm not saying tests should not be run, efforts not made, just that I'd be surprised if any definitive conclusions will be reached.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 758
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Sir Robert
The analogy is clear to most people: i.e. you can spend a lot of money, run every test known to man, and still have flame wars amongst experts over inconclusive results.
Actually, I do think it's a reasonable analogy, but for a slightly different reason.
I'd say you can spend a lot of money, run every test known to man, and still run up against a little coterie of die-hards who are determined to believe, and will therefore spend their time thinking up rather implausible ways of getting around the evidence that it's a hoax.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
And the circle continues...
Diary (a book with ink on paper claiming only to be a hundred or so years old).
Shroud (uhh... not a book with ink on paper and claiming to be ancient).
The forensic tests for each would in fact be completely different. Even labs that might test both would tell you that. How do I know? Check out the McCrone website and see what they've worked on in the past.
But it doesn't matter. All that matters now is that we learn as much as possible about the document. Keep moving forward, beginning perhaps with RJ's proposal or with a complete, state-of-the-art chemical analysis of the ink.
In favor of learning more, as always,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
You might be right, Chris, except I see the debate here centering on WHEN it was hoaxed, not whether or not the Diary is legit. What passes for pro-Diarist here are people that think it's perhaps an older hoax than initially believed.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
"Shroud (uhh... not a book" "
My God - why didn't you tell us this before? And here we were all thinking one test fits all.
The blunt truth here is that if the Diary indeed undergoes more testing, it will be despite your efforts, not because of them. You asserted the book should be burned at the very same time Jenni was working with Smith on new tests.
Way to go.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 101
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Hi Sir Rob,
Still retaining your sanity I'm pleased to see. Yes the analogy is a good one. The shroud debate is as strong as ever even though it seems highly unlikely amongst the hundreds of religious artifacts supposed to be connected to Christ and other biblical characters, to be the one and only genuine one.
You genuinely want to know the age of the diary once and for all and so do I. So do quite a few others I won't mention. I'm glad you have a sufficiently enquiring mind to want to find out as it furthers the debate.
The Chris Phillips's of this world will continue with their little jibes, making out that there is clear evidence that its already been proved modern. We know there isn't any, and thats why we're still looking.
Continuing to pretend that there is anyone amongst the still sceptical regulars here who haven't closed their minds entirely, as Chris apparently has, who won't accept the thing as a worthless modern fake, if that's what it is shown to be, is just a little sad.
On with the discussion then.....
Regards
Paul |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 792
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Actually that was my idea, Sir Robert. It was a joke. Maybe a big Burning Man festival is called for, something we could stash all the self-righteous indignation that's built up over the years from both sides. I reckon we'd need a Burning Man about 500 feet tall. We could all do the Church Lady Superior Dance around it.
Open bar with me bartending. It could be cathartic.
Dave |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Yes yes, we should burn all controversial books.
"Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:45 am:
David,
Well, I'll come forward and second your suggestion.
Throw the cheap hoax in.
--John
PS: Nice to see Figment takes an occasional break from his duties over at the Land of Imagination (and the DiTA thread) to stop by and inspire such fanciful (but completely unevidenced) stories now and then. At least they are fun to read."
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Spare me the outrage, Sir Robert. The debate's all about scoring points, nothing else. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Actually, it's not outrage. It's contempt, and it's not directed at you.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 760
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Paul
The Chris Phillips's of this world will continue with their little jibes, making out that there is clear evidence that its already been proved modern.
You seem to have missed my point. See Sir Robert's post - he seems to have got it.
If you ever want to lay aside your own "little jibes", and start discussing the evidence, I asked a couple of pertinent questions on another thread in response to your claim that "the evidence" favoured an old hoax.
Sir Robert
You might be right, Chris, except I see the debate here centering on WHEN it was hoaxed, not whether or not the Diary is legit. What passes for pro-Diarist here are people that think it's perhaps an older hoax than initially believed.
If you can get Caroline Morris to agree that it's a hoax, and that we're only arguing about when it was made, then some progress will have been made!
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Don't you people ever get tired of such silliness?
Sir Robert, surely you know that no one, including David and me, was ever seriously suggesting burning anything.
The fact that I'd actually have to come here and say that demonstrates exactly what this debate is all about (nothing, really) and why it's all such a repetitive waste of time.
Still, as long as we're all spending a Saturday repeating ourselves...
"Meanwhile, what matters now is that this is not the end of the process, is that this marks only the beginning of a responsible and rigorous new testing regime which includes a state-of-the-art, thorough chemical analysis of the ink and the sort of independent examinations and comparisons with the record recently called for by RJ.
The goal is still what it always has been, learn as much as possible about the document. That hasn't changed for me. I look forward to all the new results. "
Laughing at the lunacy but hoping for more learning,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
"If you can get Caroline Morris to agree that it's a hoax, and that we're only arguing about when it was made, then some progress will have been made!"
I personally believe that Caz is being sincere when she says she just doesn't know. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I think she would agree that skepticism is the correct default position. I could be wrong but I've never seen any posting nor writing of hers that would side with the position that the Diary is legitimately the Diary of James Maybrick, or that Maybrick was the Ripper. I certainly don't.
The problem is I don't believe Michael Barrett was the forger, either. Unfortunately with as much vitriol that gets slung around here, posters seem to believe that questioning Barrett's authorship is akin to believing the Diary to be authentic.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
"Sir Robert, surely you know that no one, including David and me, was ever seriously suggesting burning anything. "
I believe that David was joking. Looking at the totality of what you've posted about the Diary and the character of Robert Smith, I think your position is quite obvious, rhetorical flourishes aside.
If we might step back from all the personal attacks, I do have a question for you. I'm curious as to what questions you posed for Albert. Perhaps Jenni and Robert Smith could intercede to get him to join in the discussion.
If I were he, and realized that Smith is cooperating with further testing, I might conclude that perhaps there is a sincere effort afoot to get at the truth.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Feel free to send me e-mail and I'll send you a copy of the letter which received no response.
My position, as you call it, has never changed. I stand in favor of learning everything possible about the document. If you think anyone was ever serious about burning the book, then there is simply no hope for us agreeing on anything since we obviously have two completely different methods of reading.
I can laugh about your ridiculous interpretation, but it's sad in a way.
And it's certainly not worth my time to participate in such stupidity.
Still just sad and irrelevant here,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 761
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
The point is that Caroline Morris will not agree with you that the diary is a hoax, and that we are only arguing about the date of its creation.
As I said, if only she would, that would be a giant leap forward.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
"Feel free to send me e-mail and I'll send you a copy of the letter which received no response."
I'm fine with going through the Casebook message system if you want, but my email addy is right below if you wanna save time.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
It's on its way.
Let me know if you want to try writing to Albert yourself, I'll send you his address as well.
--John |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 800
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Diary (a book with ink on paper claiming only to be a hundred or so years old).
Shroud (uhh... not a book with ink on paper and claiming to be ancient).
And this is the guy who accuses me of being too literal!
The point is that Caroline Morris will not agree with you that the diary is a hoax, and that we are only arguing about the date of its creation.
As I said, if only she would, that would be a giant leap forward.
No, in fact that would be a giant leap backwards. Because if, as Sir Robert says, she genuinely doesn't know (and from all my conversations with her I can confirm that to be the case), then all you will have achieved is to make yet one more person say "yeah, yeah, whatever you say" and give up on the very thorough research she continues to do into the subject.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Alan,
Amidst a crowd who thinks my seconding David's joke about the diary being burned at a tribal gathering was serious, literalisms become a necessity.
But thanks for your valuable input.
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Alan
If you have a browse through the old message boards on the Casebook CD, you'll see that five years ago Caroline Morris seemed quite satisfied not only that the diary was a hoax, but that the "tin match box empty" line indicated that it was a more modern hoax than the 1970s.
From your conversations wih her, perhaps you know what caused her to shift her position.
Anyway, for the third time, what I was trying to point out was that it's not now the case that everyone here accepts that the diary was a hoax. And both you and Sir Robert appear to agree that's not the case.
But being a diary board, I suppose we have to have an argument about it ...
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on March 26, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
OK, I'm confused.
Originally Sir Robert wrote:
You might be right, Chris, except I see the debate here centering on WHEN it was hoaxed, not whether or not the Diary is legit. What passes for pro-Diarist here are people that think it's perhaps an older hoax than initially believed.
Then, logically, Chris pointed out that Caroline Morris, for one, would not admit the diary was a hoax, despite what Sir Robert says above.
So then Sir Robert said to Chris that Caroline honestly doesn't know (which seems to support Chris's position that NOT everyone here is simply agreeing it is a hoax and arguing about when, the way Sir Robert originally claimed). So Sir Robert, by this time, is actually arguing with his own earlier position.
So then Chris points this out again and Alan says that Caroline honestly doesn't know whether it's a hoax or not and so will not (and should not) admit it's a hoax -- which is precisely what Chris was originally claiming was the case in his response to Sir Robert's characterization of the discussion here as being only about when the hoax was made and not whether or not it's legit.
So it sounds like all three people actually agree with each other that Caroline does not know whether this thing is real or not, and therefore Sir Robert's original statement that we are all here arguing about when the hoax was made and not whether this thing is real or not -- "What passes for pro-Diarist here are people that think it's perhaps an older hoax than initially believed." -- was just wrong.
And that's all we've learned.
OK, maybe I'm not confused.
Just amused.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 26, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
"The point is that Caroline Morris will not agree with you that the diary is a hoax, and that we are only arguing about the date of its creation. "
OK - fair enough. Let me ask you this, though: don't certain time frames preclude authenticity ?
I guess at the end of the day agnosticism doesn't equal belief in authenticity in my eyes, and it's close enough for me to work with.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Heh heh...
You guys kill me, you really do.
I haven't laughed like this in ages.
I hope everyone else is enjoying this priceless discussion.
Just lovin' Diary World tonight,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
I guess at the end of the day agnosticism doesn't equal belief in authenticity in my eyes
Whoever said it did ...?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
No one, Chris.
But agnosticism is a far cry from being a pro-Diarist. Those seem to be an endangered species, and I don't know of any actively posting here.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 764
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
OK - I'll have one last go at explaining. I'm really not saying anything that difficult or obscure!
You wrote:
I see the debate here centering on WHEN it was hoaxed, not whether or not the Diary is legit. What passes for pro-Diarist here are people that think it's perhaps an older hoax than initially believed.
That implies everyone who posts here accepts that the diary is a hoax, and that the argument is just about when it was made.
I pointed out that's not the case, because one of the most prolific posters doesn't accept that it's a hoax.
Of course, by saying she doesn't accept that it's a hoax, I'm not implying that she believes it's genuine. In the past she's stated quite clearly that she didn't believe it was genuine, and that her "pet theory" was that it was faked in the 1970s, but that the "tin match box empty" evidence pointed to a later fake.
Now she claims to be open-minded (or perhaps just finds it more convenient not to have to defend any particular position).
I hope that's clear enough.
Chris Phillips
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 801
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
Chris
From your conversations wih her, perhaps you know what caused her to shift her position.
Five years ago I would have told you that Martin Fido was right and David Cohen was definitely the Ripper. Five years later, having done the research myself, I would tell you that in my opinion Martin Fido was absolutely wrong and David Cohen was almost certainly not the Ripper. Positions change. I would think that the anti-diary crowd would be the first to agree with me when I say that in the Ripper world, dogmatism is one of the chief enemies.
And incidentally I understood your original point, I wasn't arguing with that, merely with the additional comment you tacked on to your original point, that being that browbeating somebody into submission would be a giant leap forward. It would not. If you want somebody to agree with you, it has to be because they have reached that conclusion for themselves and not just because it makes for a quieter life.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
Oh, look...
Translation in action...
Chris wrote:
"If you can get Caroline Morris to agree that it's a hoax, and that we're only arguing about when it was made, then some progress will have been made!"
Which Alan translated as Chris saying "browbeating somebody into submission would be a giant leap forward..."
Lovely.
Yup, that's just what Chris wrote. And meant. No doubt about it. He was definitely advocating "browbeating somebody into submission."
No wonder things like "the Poste House" and "tin matchbox empty" don't have to mean "the Poste House" and "tin matchbox empty" but can mean other things with words added or letters changed. No wonder the diary can say so many different things to so many people despite the actual words on the page.
Reading around here is nothing if not creative.
Thrilled to see this critically valuable and necessary discussion is continuing this morning,
--John
PS: I love you guys, still.
(Message edited by omlor on March 27, 2005) |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 802
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Very good John, always easy to make points when you choose quotes other than the one that I was referring to. Considering I included the exact quote I was referring to in my original post I would have thought your enormous brain might have been able to figure it out. Guess not.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
OK, let's try once more, since we're only having pointless fun.
Here's the full quote from Chris to which Alan was responding:
"The point is that Caroline Morris will not agree with you that the diary is a hoax, and that we are only arguing about the date of its creation.
As I said, if only she would, that would be a giant leap forward."
That's the second time Chris had said that, by the way.
Here's what Alan translates this into:
"browbeating somebody into submission would be a giant leap forward..."
Yup. I'm convinced. They're definitely same thing. No question whatsoever about it. "Browbeating somebody into submission" is precisely what Chris was advocating.
After all, why would Alan possibly want to make it seem as if Chris were recommending such a thing if he wasn't? Can anyone think of a reason? I sure can't.
Nope, the only possible conclusion is that Alan's translation of Chris's quote into "browbeating somebody into submission" is an accurate one.
Unbelievable.
With deadly accurate reading like this around here, it's no wonder the gallery is constantly amused.
Happy to be the jesters for the boards,
--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.
|
|
|
|
