|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:38 pm: | 
|
PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Authors: Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, and Keith Skinner Source: Ripper Diary: The Inside Story, pg. 13, paraphrasing the report of Dr. David Baxendale of 1 July, 1992.
"He [Baxendale] noted that, unlike most later nineteenth century inks, which change to a brown color with age, this ink had not browned. He felt the free-flowing nature of the ink was also unusual for the period."
Author: Shirley Harrison/Alec Voller Source: The Diary of Jack the Ripper (Blake, 1998) p. 371-372, quoting from an examination conducted by Alec Voller on 30 October, 1995
"At this point Mr. Voller took the Diary to the window. 'This is as I thought...it's barely visible...in one or two places there is some very slight bronzing....tilted to the light it can just be seen...'the children they distract me so I ripped OPEN'....the bronzing is in the last word...There is some more visible on the word's 'building up.' This tells me that it is genuinely old...This bronzing effect is a chemical process which is not fully understood...you only get pronounced bronzing where the ink is a blue-black that is to say when the ink is not nigrosine. With a nigrosine base the bronzing is usually less obvious.'"
Author: Melvin Harris Source: Casebook Archives, Tuesday, 5 December, 2000 11:41 am
"ON THE AGE OF THE DIARY INK:
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."
Then very late in the day, some three and a half years later, Alec Voller saw the Diary for the first time. His scrutiny on October 30th 1995 led him to find some traces of age-bronzing and fading in the ink. From this, he wrongly concluded that the ink was old. At no time was he told by Smith or Harrison that the observable changed HAD to be recent, since they had not existed in previous years. Neither did Alec Voller realise that tests set up in 1995 with his help, would in time, invalidate his views completely.
In brief, he made up samples of the original Diamine manuscript ink and sent these to both Smith & Co. and Nick Warren, for them to experiment with. The Smith/Harrison camp seems to have done nothing. By contrast, Nick Warren sent me a letter written in the ink using both a fountain pen and a Victorian steel nibbed pen. By 1998 the fountain pen lines were showing signs of bronzing while the thinner, steel nib section was distinctly bronzed in every word. Today, the bronzing is extensive. This proves that Diamine manuscript ink will age in under three years. Equally ANY iron-gall manuscript ink, using nigrosine, can be expected to behave in a similar fashion.
Thus his sight-viewing of the Diary, some three and a half years after its arrival in London, could not lead to any useful observations touching on age. But he did state that the ink used Nigrosine, which is in line with Dr. Baxendale's tests and Dr Eastaugh's findings, but clashes directly with the Leeds report which denied the very existance of Nigrosine in its samples!"
Author: Michael Hopper Source: Casebook Archives, 6 September 2001 - 9:37 am
"I am new to this discussion but have tried to read everything here on the Casebook and elsewhere on the matter of the ink in the "diary."
Having been an ink chemist for more than 20 years I offer the opinion that others have implied. It may well be a very costly effort to accurately date the ink on the manuscript. I am no expert on iron gall inks (if that is indeed the type of ink in question) but know a lot about iron oxide inks used in cheque (checks for those in parts of North America) printing...
I have a question on why would anyone (including Maybrick himself) use an iron gall ink? My research indicates that such writers as Charles Dickens converted from that type of ink to a blue dye ink between 1835 and 1840. Before those dates he used iron gall after that the blue dye. Was this ink chosen so that the manuscript would "appear" old?
Regards to all
Mike
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Source: Casebook Archives, 7 September 2001 - 05:23 am
"Hi Chris, Michael, All,
Just for arguments sake, if such a document as this diary had been kept closed for a long while, then, from say 1991, was suddenly exposed to the air, and thereafter constantly opened and pored over, might that in itself not cause the ink to change and possibly 'acquire a bronzed look', over a period of time from the first to later examinations? Just wondering, because I've asked this question about exposure to the elements of a long-closed book several times now, but no one has yet responded."
Author: Michael Hopper Source: Casebook Archives, 8 September 2001 - 03:09 pm
"Caz wonders if repeat exposure of the document would cause "the ink to change and possibly 'acquire a bronzed look', over a period of time from the first to later examinations?"
From what I have read of the characteristics of iron gall inks, the ink would change appearance over a period of 4 to 5 years and it would change faster with exposure than without, but any ink in such "book" would still age as the major elements that are involved in the changes are oxygen and water vapour. Both of these elements would have fairly easy access to the ink in a closed book unless it had been hermetically sealed.
As I understand the paper of the book is of a rather coarse texture (not highly compressed parchment) that would aid in the migration of oxygen and water vapour to the ink.
Both of these factors suggest to me that if the ink has changed its appearance over the past 10 years it had likely not been applied to the paper more than 10 years ago.
Regards
Mike"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:45 pm: |
|
PART TWO - THE PROPOSAL
The Casebook Message Boards have debated the Maybrick Diary, I believe, for the better part of nine years. Longer than I’ve been here.
At various times, various proposals have been set-forth to break through the perceived ‘impasse’ between the Diary friendly folks, and the ‘anti-diarists.’ At other times, new tests have been proposed, and attempts have even been made to fund them.
Without delving into any past acrimony, it’s my perception that some of the objections to further testing have been the following:
1. Expense
2. Inconclusiveness
3. Damage to the document
I believe I’ve come up with what would amount to a new ‘test’ for the diary that would cost absolutely nothing, require no equipment of any kind, would need little expertise, would not in any way damage the Diary, and yet, at the same time, would teach us something conclusive.
Here’s my proposal.
Allec Voller’s words give us an excellent description of what he was seeing in October 1995. They are, in effect, “locked in time.” He states that only in ‘one or two places’ does he see bronzing on a particular page: viz., the page beginning “Am I not clever?” (p. 397, Blake edition). Concerning the sentence “the children they distract me so I ripped OPEN..’ it is plain from the transcript quoted by Harrison that Mr. Voller is only seeing bronzing on the final word ‘open.’ Two pages earlier he only sees a little more bronzing on the phrase “building up” (pg. 395, Blake). If a full transcription of Mr. Voller’s words were made available (the tape evidently exists) more descriptions can, perhaps, be gleaned. However, I do think we already have enough to work with.
The late Melvin Harris claimed that Diamine ink samples sent to him by Nick Warren ‘bronzed’ significantly in about three years, and continued to bronze up to at least the year 2000. In contrast, Dr. Baxendale evidently had seen no bronzing when he looked for it in 1992; Voller found it in 1995. So the questions are, quite simply, these: Is the ink bronzing? Has it continued to bronze since Mr. Voller’s examination in 1995?
Here it seems, we have an excellent chance to test Melvin Harris’s hypothesis, and either confirm it or deny it. I have no axe to grind. I have never seen the Maybrick Diary, and I haven’t the faintest idea of what the results of an examination might show.
I simply ask for Mr. Smith to allow a team of four or five viewers (accepted by all) to examine the Diary, and, in particular, the passaged described by Mr. Voller in 1995. If possible, (though I admit this is unlikely) the viewers would include Drs. Baxendale and Alec Voller. Other names I might throw in the hat might be Keith Skinner, Nick Warren, Peter Birchwood--if willing , of course, and perhaps the panel might suggest others.
One thing I would suggest would not be helpful is for Robert Smith to open his vault and examine the Diary himself and report back to the board. I have never met Mr. Smith, he has always been entirely cordial on the one or two times we have exchanged messages; I have no reason to doubt his observations, let alone his eye-sight. I think, however, as owner of the Diary we would want to avoid even the slightest hint of impartiality.
It seems to me that if any part of the phrase ‘the children they distract me so I ripped OPEN’ is now bronzed other than the final word, it would provide conclusive evidence that the Diary’s ink has browned over the past ten years.
I post this for everyone’s consideration, and would hope, in particular that the Casebook, the Ripperologist, Ripper Notes, or Ripperana would co-operate with this proposal, lest this debate prove endless.
Thanks for your time.
RP |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
A Final Note
I see my stumble-tongue gave me a bit of a slip. In regards to Mr. Smith, I wrote, "the slightest hint of impartiality", when, of course, I meant partiality (!) I think we would want partisianship in so far as the team of viewers would consist of participants with varying degrees of belief and disbelief, so everyone could feel confident about the integrity of the test.
Three final suggestions and then I'll leave this for others to either take up or disregard.
1. Before the experiment, I think it would be crucial to review Mr. Voller's tape, or a transcript of the tape. If I read this correctly, we have a remarkable document at our disposal; we have Voller describing what he is seeing while he is looking directly at the diary in October 1995.
2. To make the test as objective as possible, three or four specific points of comparison should be written-up beforehand. I've already listed some of these above; viz., the line "the children they distract me so I ripped OPEN." A description of what we would be expected to see (or not see) would be drafted, using Voller's 1995 statements as a guide.
3. Each member of the viewing team would individually look at the appropriate passages and make descriptive notes. They would then compare these notes for the final report.
That's all from me, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, I haven't the ability or the authority to conduct the tests, living on the wrong side of the pond. If anyone would like to take this up, I would be more than willing to do what little is in my power. I do think it's a solid solution and hope someone will seriously consider it.
Regards, RJ Palmer
(Message edited by rjpalmer on March 19, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4268
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Hi RJ
Just a minor suggestion : in addition to the team of viewers, have a qualified cameraman - say, one used to filming historic paintings for TV documentaries etc - video the relevant pages. Hopefully this would offset any subjectivity in the colour descriptions. I imagine it wouldn't cost the earth.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Great idea!
Melvin's words: Today, the bronzing is extensive (when referring to the Diamine experiment) say it all, as far as I am concerned.
My understanding is that the writing in the diary is no more bronzed today than when Voller examined it, and that slight bronzing of certain words visible in the right light in 1995 (and arguably at any time before that had anyone examined the same words as carefully) has certainly not become extensive since.
But I agree it would be terrific if it could be demonstrated to all in Diary World that my understanding is the correct one.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
To call the 'Maybrick' artifact a diary is a misnomer. There is no evidence that Maybrick ever kept a diary in the 'normal' sense of the word.
The artifact is a hoax. It cannot be a forgery as a forgery is by most dictionary definitions an unlawful copy of a genuine article/artifact to mislead and/or for monetary gains. And as stated above we do not know if Maybrick was a diarist.
Whether we believe Mike Barrett's sworn affidavit as to the origins of the hoax is true or not is a moot point. But I ask this. Is Anne Graham prepared to swear on oath that her version of the events, and origins of the book are true?
Just a thought.
A. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 862
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
RJ,
Just to chime in and say: very good idea. It can't harm either way and it would be interesting to see what, if any, bronzing has occurred.
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 796
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:53 am: |
|
Sounds like a good idea, but from experience I'm willing to bet that no matter what the results, there is going to be no general consensus on here as to what they mean.
(Mind you, if the only result was to put an end to that puerile DiTA day nonsense it would be worth its weight in gold!)
"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/
|
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
Hello,
Can all of you police people PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ! tell me this.Is everyone on the Maybrick suspect thread CRAZY!!!!!
I was looking at the dissertations for James Maybrick. The man who revealed the diary , Michael Barrett, made 2 sworn affidavits on the 5th and 25th of Janruary 1995.
He told the police he and his wife forged the diary. His life was threatened by people standing to make money out of it, but he stood firm and said "Yep, I forged it".
HE MADE A DIRECT APOLOGY TO MAYBRICK FOR IMPLICATING HIM IN THE CASE.
Tell me like I am a 4 year old police people! If he has made these comprehensive statements under oath at the police station or CIB, what other evidence do you need that it is a hoax?
Why does Maybrick have the highest number of posts on his thread when his thread should be removed alltogether from the list? What is there to disscuss about him? Are you all crazy, or am I? |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
'General consensus'??? All the sensible world agrees the diary is THE nonsense, not DiTA day. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
Hi Dale,
Sorry to spoil your party, but - wait for it - Michael Barrett lied in those sworn affidavits. Yes! Unbelievable isn't it? Fancy not being able to trust the word of your favoured hoax suspect! What's the world coming to?
He didn't write the diary and nor did his missus - no one will ever prove otherwise. You have allowed yourself to be fooled, in your rush to show how not gullible you are.
And I'm afraid no one 'standing to make money' out of the diary has ever threatened Mike's life. You've been watching way too many tv dramas.
Love,
Caz
X |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
"Is everyone on the Maybrick suspect thread CRAZY!!!!! "
No, but an unregistered guest starting off with that sort of question, and expecting a polite reply, might be.
There are three people I feel pretty confident didn't write the Diary, and they are:
1) Jack the Ripper
2) James Maybrick
3) Mike Barrett
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
Hi Robert
Please take down my email address. (jeff.leahy@btinternet.com)
I have been working on an television idea for the past couple of months. However my attension has been very occupied on a new series for LivingTV (one of which includes an episode on 1960's stripper murders).
I am however interested in filming any testing carried out on the Maybrick Diary and more than willing to give advive to this end.
I'm not convinced I share your conviction that the colour representation of Video cameras can stand as scientific evidence but the facsimily should at least bare witness to what is said by those who are making the examinations.
Anyway if you require help with filming let me know. If you require help with financing these tests however, you will need to wait until I can convince a comissioning editor.
Good Luck, happy ink testing
Jeff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
I've read everything through again, more carefully this time, and something is puzzling me. You wrote:
...Dr. Baxendale evidently had seen no bronzing when he looked for it in 1992...
You appear to have got this from Melvin's claim that:
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.
But where is the evidence that Baxendale a) was actually asked to look for signs of bronzing, or b) looked without being asked, and c) reported looking for bronzing and finding 'not the slightest trace'?
My understanding is that if a scientist looks for something, he generally reports that fact and then reports whether he finds it or not.
Similarly, Melvin claimed:
...in October 1992 Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh also saw no signs of age-bronzing.
And:
Neither Kenneth Rendell, Dr. Joe Nickell, Maureen Casey Owens, or Robert Kuranz saw any signs of age-bronzing.
The obvious implication is that every one of these people looked for signs and saw a big fat zero. But is there clear written evidence in the various reports to show that these named professionals actively looked for signs of bronzing, saw none, and recorded its absence? If not, Melvin's claims are not worth very much, are they?
And as for this:
And my own limited examination of the Diary pages, in October 1993, led to the same conclusion,
I just don't know what to make of it now. But it's no real surprise that Melvin happily concluded there were no signs of bronzing - considering just how limited his own 'examination' turns out to have been.
And there seems to be very little in common between the bronzing of Diamine ink, according to Warren's experiment:
By 1998 the fountain pen lines were showing signs of bronzing while the thinner, steel nib section was distinctly bronzed in every word. Today [circa 2000], the bronzing is extensive. This proves that Diamine manuscript ink will age in under three years,
and the bronzing of the diary ink, according to Voller:
"it's barely visible... in one or two places there is some very slight bronzing... tilted to the light it can just be seen... the bronzing is in the last word... I have seen a considerable number of documents like that where there has been very little bronzing..."
The diary writing was already well past its third birthday when Voller examined it (and of course he thought it was an old man of 90+ by then, but that's for another day). So for Melvin's claims to be correct, shouldn't there have been distinct bronzing throughout the document by October 1995?
Anyway, I suppose it'll all come out in the wash when we hear how the ink's appearance today compares with what Voller saw then.
I'll try and find out if anyone else has expressed an interest in helping with your proposal. I'll do whatever I can to make it happen.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4291
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your offer of advice re the filming. I suppose the only really objective way to measure bronzing, would be to use some sort of machine that can measure the wavelengths of the light bouncing off the ink. That might cost a bit!
I hadn't envisaged doing this filming myself, Jeff. Or indeed financing it. But I am prepared to turn up on the day of the filming with a first aid kit, and tend the injured. 
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Thanks to everyone for the comments.
..Dr. Baxendale evidently had seen no bronzing when he looked for it in 1992...
"You appear to have got this from Melvin's claim..."
Caz--I sent you a private message, but no, just so there is no confusion, I actually got this from your own book (p 13).
""He [Baxendale] noted that, unlike most later nineteenth century inks, which change to a brown color with age, this ink had not browned.'
By 'browned', I'm taking it that Baxendale means the same as 'bronzed.' It's implicit in the statement that he was "looking for it", because he specifically comments on the color of the ink in his report, and is evidently mildly surprised at what he had seen. He wouldn't have commented if he hadn't looked for it.
Now, stop the presses. This by no means proves that the ink was new, since, as Shirley has suggested to me privately, some Victorian inks don't show any obvious signs of bronzing. But what it does show is that Baxendale saw no obvious signs of bronzing in 1992, whereas Voller records slight signs in 1995. You suggest an interesting hypothesis that the ink was so slighlty bronzed that perhaps Baxendale simply missed it. This could be true, I have no way of knowing. But it's worth noting that Baxendale was observing the ink through a microscope fitted with an electric lamp and Voller was looking at the Diary at a lighted window, so it's difficult for me to imagine that Baxendale's viewing was somehow inferior to Voller's. I wasn't there with Dr. Baxendale, unfortunately. I'm hoping he tilted the book around a bit, but I have no way of knowing. I can only judge by what has been placed in the public domain. In some cases the reports were copyrighted, in others the authors of those reports didn't want them reprinted, etc., so I'm not attaching any criticism to this situation, only acknowleding it. By what I've seen in the public domain, I currently have no reason to disbelieve Harris's claim that Baxendale looked at every line of the Diary; I haven't been told otherwise. If Dr. B had seen 'brown' ink, he didn't record it. That's all I really know.
But all of this is outside the scope of my proposed test. You asked if I believe the Diary has bronzed or has continued to bronze. I have no opinion on the matter. I have never seen the Maybrick document. Maybe it has. Maybe it hasn't. That's what the examination is meant to determine.
I come from loins of those fools who treaded the Oregon trail back in the 1850s, so I tend to be a bit more laissez-faire than most. I think all that is really required is common-sense. We don't really need any fancy equipment or impossible-to-obtain quantitative objectivity. Objectivity can be assurred by making this a 'blind' test; the viewers aren't told what to expect by way of bronzing, but only to (independently) describe what they are seeing. Their descriptions will then be compared to Voller's 1995 descriptions. Simple as falling off a log. As long as everyone is happy and open, I see no reason why a group of intelligent adults couldn't determine if certain sentences in the Diary have changed significantly since Mr. Voller gave us his very specific descriptions of one or two sentences back in 1995. All the best. RP |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 95
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Hello RJ.
Before I start I'd just like to say that I think your proposals for such a simple test are really excellent. I'm not so naive as to think that they would prove in any way conclusive as to the age of the diary, but they could well be exceedingly useful in pointing us in the right direction at least.
Now to my point. You say in your last....
"By 'browned', I'm taking it that Baxendale means the same as 'bronzed."
In the several years that I have been interested in the diary I have always assumed that bronzed meant the slightly metallic effect that old inks take on with age. Browning, I take to mean something completely different. I have an old autograph book in front of me now that exhibits both phenomenon on adjacent pages. The bronzing seems more pronounced where the ink is at its densest.
The other point that concerns me just a little is Baxendale's claim to have studied the whole of the 63 pages of the diary with a microscope, line by line? Did he really? Every single one? Thats a rhetorical question of course, and I don't expect an answer. It was Baxendale who made rather misleading comments about the age of the photographs that may or may not have been attached to the lost pages, so I'm not sure I'd be 100% happy with all he says.
Anyhow RJ, just a couple of thoughts. I'd like to add my thanks concerning your suggestion, and I hope that an objective assessment of the ink will happen before too long.
Regards
Paul |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
If Dr. B had seen 'brown' ink, he didn't record it.
And you will have read my private response, part of which I will reproduce here:
Fair enough, although to me 'this ink had not browned' is simply an observation that the writing in the diary had very obviously not gone brown in colour...
It's no secret that the diary was on display in 2001 in Bournemouth (and if I remember rightly it was purposefully laid open at a page where Voller had observed some of this 'barely visible' bronzing). And it's also no secret what colour the writing was then - three guesses what colour it wasn't.
I also wrote to you:
Melvin himself wrote a sample using plain iron-gall ink, and within a relatively short time any initial resemblance it had to the diary writing was long gone. The diary ink remains a total enigma.
Hi Paul,
Baxendale also reported finding nigrosine and believed this had only been in use since the 1940s. But Shirley Harrison discovered that nigrosine was commercially patented in 1867 and was in general use in writing inks by the 1870s.
From long experience, I try to be very careful not to read any more into Melvin's claims than he chose to give us himself. His way of wording things could sometimes appear designed to give a certain impression, but when you look again he has actually said something subtly different. For example RJ interprets:
Dr. David Baxendale examined the Diary handwriting line-by-line...
as:
Baxendale looked at every line of the Diary...,
while cynical old me thinks that is exactly the assumption Melvin would have liked his readers to make from his words, without going that far himself.
I somehow doubt that Melvin knows more about Baxendale's examination than anyone else, but if he had managed to ascertain that every line on all 63 pages had been scrutinised, I think we can be fairly confident that he would have said as much.
So like you, I am sceptical.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2043
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
I butt in only because i have totally lost the thread of this!(and also to get out of writing this blasted essay!)
Anyway perhaps someone could ask Dr Baxendale what he meant?
Jenni
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
What he meant by what, Jenni?
I see no any actual quotes from Baxendale's report here - only paraphrasing and Melvin's claim about what Baxendale actually examined.
All we know is that Baxendale observed that the diary writing was not brown in colour in 1992, which is hardly surprising if it wasn't brown three years later, when Voller observed the slight 'barely visible' bronzing in a few places, or nine years later in Bournemouth, when all the attendees had the opportunity to see it 'in the flesh'.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
So to be clear here what is the point we are making what actual colour the ink is? are you asking is it brown or is it black? |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 556
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Hi. I'd just like to stress that I am not endorsing Melvin's view or anyone else's view. How could I? I've never seen the diary's ink. I've never even seen Dr. Baxendale's report. The only thing I am truly endorsing is a new examination, to help clear up the muddle. Anyway, it seems to me that Robert Smith, Caroline Morris, the late Melvin Harris etc., are in basic agreement: Alec Voller was the first person to notice subtle signs of ink bronzing. Different conclusions are drawn as to why this is, all of which are interesting, potentially valid, ...and (so far) inconclusive. As I stated in my last post, Caz's hypothesis might well be the right one. I have no way of knowing, and I would be more than happy to confirm her beliefs if they prove accurate. The only sensible thing to do is to compare Mr. Voller's 1995 descriptions of the diary's bronzing with the current level of bronzing. To this end, Robert Smith has sent me an encouraging letter.
Again, one small point. Expectations as to how the diary's ink currently appears or how it appeared in Bournemoth, etc., while interesting, are anecdotal, and shouldn't take the place of a carefully conducted examination. I think we can all agree with that. Thanks, RJP
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 97
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Hi again RJ.
AM I right in my assumption that "Bronzing" is exactly what I thought it was then? That is, not a colour change as such, but a reflective appearance taken on as the ink ages?
My understanding of permanent inks of this type is that the words are burnt into the page by oxidisation over a relatively short period of time. The dye in the ink was there merely so that the writer could see what he was writing, and so that the words are visible until they become permanent. Any actual colour change would have to be fairly early on in the history of the diary no matter how old it is.
Its good to hear that the signs from Robert Smith are encouraging.
Hi Caroline.
The problem with Melvin Harris' written work on the diary seems to me to be in the clever way in which it is written. I find I need to read his articles several times over for the odd throw away line debunking certain uncomfortable facts that don't quite fit, before making up my mind.
Have a good Easter.
Regards,
Paul |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
"To this end, Robert Smith has sent me an encouraging letter. "
That's terrific, R.J. Glad to see the ball being advanced.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:55 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
No offence intended. I tell my girlfriend all the time she is crazy for watching soapies like Neighbous.I am only asking for assisstance to help with my confusion and would be greatfull if I could get some.
As Caz sais in her post ,this Barrett chap lied about the forgery. A forgery, like a false UFO sighting,fools gold,a dud bomb threat,a prank phone call ECT, is a hoax.A forgery, in itself ,is a hoax.This is what I am having trouble coming to terms with.Are you saying he has 'Hoaxed a Hoax'.
I asked around and no one could help me.Why did Barrett hoax a hoax.What was his goal.Have you ever ,in policing, come across anyone who has hoaxed a hoax? Why implicate his wife in this hoax of a hoax? Was he off the radar in terms of mental health? - I really am stumped here.
Thanks, Happy Easter! |
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Hi Caroline,
Thanks for your reply, much appriciated.I was'nt trying to sound like a wiseguy or anything.I have been going through the ripper files at a wirlwind pace, so some things I may have missed.Can you please clear a few thing up for me. According to what I saw on Maybrick's suspect profile on this very website:
- Barret was the person who revealed the diary to the world.
- It did say in dissertations , he was beaten up, his family was threatened, his life threatened if he claimed he forged it. He said this in his affidavit.
- He did apologise earnestly to James Maybrick for slandering his name.
- he gave a detailed account of the whole forgery process.
Caroline: * is this information incorrect?
* why did he lie about his statement - what did he gain by this lie?
* was it he who revealed the diary to the public?
* why did he go into a detailed discription of the forgery process?
* Is James Maybrick's ranking as number one suspect actually justified now in 2005?
I would be greatfull if you could help me out here.
Happy Easter - Dale |
Heath Black
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
He didn't write the diary and nor did his missus - no one will ever prove otherwise.
And no-one will ever prove that neither Mike or his wife wrote the diary either. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
So to be clear here what is the point we are making what actual colour the ink is? are you asking is it brown or is it black?
Well, I gather you are the most recent poster to have seen the diary, so may I suggest that, in accordance with RJ's sensible advice, we don't say any more about the colour of the ink as it is today, while efforts are being made to organise further visual examinations on a formal basis.
Hi Dale,
Had the 'detailed account of the whole forgery process', as provided by Mike Barrett in early 1995, produced a single piece of verifiable evidence that he (or his ex-wife, or his late friend or father-in-law) had knowingly been involved with a late 1980s hoax, I would not have spent the last five years of my life puzzling over the origins of the document, and my co-author, Keith Skinner, certainly wouldn't still be investigating those origins today, ten years after Mike's 'confession' proved to be full to the brim with porkies.
What Mike thought he might gain by lying, only Mike could really tell you - if he knows today where his mind was at in those dark drunken days. At one time he claimed he confessed to get back at his wife for leaving him, and to get revenge on Paul Feldman, whom he saw as 'the enemy' who had ruined his life because of his (Feldy's) obsession with the diary. Who knows if that was the whole truth, or even partly the truth? He hurt himself as much as anyone by claiming the diary was a hoax, because his income from book sales was, of course, severely affected as a direct result.
Everyone who had already decided the diary was a modern hoax, and wanted to see it damned for all eternity, obviously lapped up Mike's confessions and didn't care whether they stood up to scrutiny or not - he was their saviour.
Mike brought the diary forward, but he has never given a verifiable account of how he came by it, so naturally suspicion fell on him from the outset. But common sense should tell us that it would be a very stupid hoaxer indeed who penned the diary himself and then handed it over personally for them both to be torn apart by the wolves of a naturally sceptical world.
Maybrick wouldn't be a suspect at all if it weren't for the diary or watch. The only reason I can imagine he figures in the rankings at all is because no one has yet been able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the voting public that either artefact is a late 20th century fake. I'm not saying that justifies his position, and clearly the onus is not on the modern hoax theorists to prove their case. Unfortunately, the voting public aren't obliged to see it that way and to follow the rules of the game.
Hi Heath,
I don't think they need to. But if you've read all there is to read on the subject, and you still want to believe either of the Barretts wrote the diary, that's entirely your choice.
You certainly won't be the only one barking up a wrong tree. 
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 30, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Caroline writes:
"Everyone who had already decided the diary was a modern hoax, and wanted to see it damned for all eternity, obviously lapped up Mike's confessions and didn't care whether they stood up to scrutiny or not."
Let me put this as politely as possible.
That's just not true.
Why she feels the need to ridiculously revise history in this silly fashion remains a mystery to me -- surely dividing the world in such a stark, over-stated, simplistic, and obviously manipulative fashion can't really be that important to her.
I recall plenty of doubt from all sides about Mike's confessions, including among some of those who believe the diary is a modern hoax.
And that doubt remains.
Not surprised, but still saddened by such nonsense,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
"Maybrick wouldn't be a suspect at all if it weren't for the diary or watch. The only reason I can imagine he figures in the rankings at all is because no one has yet been able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the voting public that either artefact is a late 20th century fake. "
I agree, but add that he's not just figuring in the rankings, he tops the $%^#!&^ list!! We are collectively doing a poor job of debunking the hoax, and I suspect (pun intended) it's because of the signal to noise ratio in these threads.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
If possible, you would probably need to look a little more closely at those votes, when they were cast, when all the votes for all the suspects were cast, and how they can be cast.
I think you'll find that this would not only explain why Maybrick was still at the top, but why it's changed so little for so long and why it has nothing to do really with either what the general public believes or even what the people around here believe.
It's not just the data, remember, it's how and when and how often the data is gathered.
But you're right, we can always do a better and more thorough job demonstrating to people that these things are fakes. Perhaps if people who think they aren't really do start posting here, that will give us the opportunity.
Here's hoping,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2061
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Caz,
very astute. But it wasn't a trick, i was just trying to asertain what the point of the thing was.
i was just trying to ascertain what your post of the 25th of March at 19.42am meant. if you would rather email me, thats fine, you know my address.
Hi John,
you know Mike Barretts confesion just puzzles me. it doesnt make me more or less inclined to think he forged or faked or hoaxed whatever the correct phrase is, the diary.
Of course for the diary to be a modern fogery he doesnt have to have. for the diary to be proven to be a modern forgery who wrote it does not have to be proven. so in this regard.
naturally if it were genuine it would need to be proven to be written by James maybrick (stop me if i sound too much like John!! kidding!!)
Robert,
for a group of people who believe its a hoax we're doing a mighty good job of it!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Exactly, Jenni. I agree.
It puzzles me too and has since I first read it. Both confessions, in fact. And I expressed those doubts even though I thought the diary was a modern hoax. So did a number of others. That's why Caroline's extraordinary claim, cited above, about what everyone who thought the diary was modern did is just bad, silly, overstated and cheaply manipulative revisionist history offered for her own curious and indecipherable purposes.
Such is the routine here in DW, though.
All the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 30, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
"Robert,
for a group of people who believe its a hoax we're doing a mighty good job of it! "
I liken it to the ShiteSunni split.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hang with me a minute. It's not necessarily accurate to state that Barrett's confessions were a 'lie.' It's more accurate to simply state that they have been disproven or shown to be false. Metaphysical hair-splitting? I don't think so. A lie suggests intent. But at least two physicians stated that there was a legitimate medical explanation as to why MB was unable to give a coherent account. Thus, despite the fact that elements of the confession are inaccurate, this by no means proves the man was intentionally lying in order to discredit Feldman, etc. No one here can look inside his chest and know his motivation. This explanation has not been proven. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 809
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
...why it has nothing to do really with either what the general public believes...
In my experience what the "general public" believes is usually "ooh, yeah, they found out it was all some cover-up to do with the royal family and the masons in the end, didn't they?"
(slaps head and wanders off mumbling)
"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/
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 9:27 pm: |
|
"It's not necessarily accurate to state that Barrett's confessions were a 'lie.'"
I actually agree with you there, RJ. Obviously, we're outsiders looking in, but something tells me that Barrett is one confused pup. I could see him as lost entirely without a compass in Diary World.
There's just a few things I feel relatively certain about. One is that Barrett didn't hoax the Diary himself, and second, if he knew who did, he would have named them when he was trying to discredit the whole sordid affair. I really get the impression that he doesn't have a clue as to which end is up.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 9:59 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
In fact, it might even be more complicated than that.
But psychology is barely a science.
Off to bed,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:51 am: |
|
Sir Robert
One is that Barrett didn't hoax the Diary himself, and second, if he knew who did, he would have named them when he was trying to discredit the whole sordid affair. I really get the impression that he doesn't have a clue as to which end is up.
But the difficulty with that point of view is that it doesn't explain how Barrett was able to identify that obscure Crashaw quotation, when no one else could.
The facts that this quotation is the very one given in the Sphere Guide to Literature, and that Barrett was able to produce the same, are still way beyond coincidence as far as I'm concerned.
Doesn't the sheer unlikelihood of that happening by chance far outweigh anything we could deduce from the murky workings of Barrett's psychology?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:20 am: |
|
Chris,
have I not gone through this thing about Crawshaw before, the book was in the library, the quote was in the book and do stop me if this sounds familiar, but all he needed to do was look in the book that was in the library which had it in.
Jenni
ps you knew I'd say it!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 786
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 4:05 am: |
|
Jenni
I remember we've all gone through it before, but what needs to be considered is:
(1) What was the likelihood of either Maybrick, or an old hoaxer including that quotation from an obscure 17th-century poet in the diary, and then the Sphere Book picking the same line to quote?
(2) Even granted the coincidence in (1), and granted that the book was in the library, what was the likelihood of Barrett being able to find that particular page in that particular volume among all the books on the shelves?
Surely no one can deny - as an abstract exercise in probability theory - that it's far likelier that the diary and the Sphere Book used the same Crashaw quotation because the people who produced the diary took it from the Sphere Book . And that Barrett was able to find it in the Sphere Book because he knew that was where it had come from in the first place.
It's the same story that crops up so often with the diary - a simple, straightforward explanation on the one hand, versus a mind-bogglingly unlikely coincidence on the other.
Sorry to go through it all again, but if we are going to discuss "Old Hoax versus New Hoax" - as several people keep saying they want to - this is one of the key pieces of evidence for a new hoax, which the old hoax theorists need to find an explanation for.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2064
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 4:15 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
yes i agree i think the people who produced the diary probably got the quote from the Sphere book. But the book was in the Liverpool library lots of people had access to the said book. hence my point about Barrett.
Jenni
ps yes the odds are very highly stacked against.
"All you need is positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 4:59 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
i was just trying to ascertain what your post of the 25th of March at 19.42am meant.
Then I'll try and explain it again:
I was just pointing out that since no one has yet, to my knowledge, described the diary writing as brown in colour (including Voller, in 1995, and those of us who saw it in Bournemouth, in 2001) the fact that Dr Baxendale observed that it wasn't brown in 1992 isn't surprising and tells us absolutely nothing about the bronzing issue. (And I'm still wondering if there is any evidence that anyone, apart from Voller, actually mentioned the subject of bronzing in connection with their reported observations.)
Hi RJ,
Thus, despite the fact that elements of the confession are inaccurate, this by no means proves the man was intentionally lying in order to discredit Feldman, etc. No one here can look inside his chest and know his motivation. This explanation has not been proven.
Yes, as I said myself:
What Mike thought he might gain by lying, only Mike could really tell you... At one time he claimed he confessed... to get revenge on Paul Feldman... Who knows if that was the whole truth, or even partly the truth?
Hi Chris P,
Obviously Mike is the only person who has a chance of getting inside his own mind and knowing why he said and did certain things, or didn't do other things, around the time he appeared desperate to convince the world the diary was recently faked.
The fact remains that he did appear desperate (and if he was acting, he did a great job considering all his obvious problems at the time with alcohol and paranoia that his life was being threatened, but perhaps all that was part of the act too?), and yet he failed to produce the Sphere volume we are all supposed to accept he had all along until several weeks after he excitedly announced that the quote could be found in a library book. He also failed to give the name of anyone who would prove a convincing candidate for penman/composer.
The reason he didn't name anyone credible IMHO is because he never had a clue who really created the diary and still doesn't. One thing he does know is how he really came by the diary. And if he hasn't yet told the truth about that story, there must be a very good reason indeed.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2065
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:06 am: |
|
so you are trying to say the bronzing issue doesn't matter?
"All you need is positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Hi again Chris,
If this were an 'abstract' exercise in probability theory, with no further information to guide us, you might have a point. But combining everything I have learned takes me beyond abstract exercises, and plunges me into a world where each scenario appears terribly terribly unlikely, and I couldn't argue the case for one scenario over another, on the basis that it may currently seem to me slightly less unlikely than another.
If you have found your highly likely scenario, that fits with every single fact you have gathered on the subject, and are happy to stick with it, then I am pleased for you; I am still lumbering along in the far distance behind you.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Blimey Jenni, where do you get that from?
The bronzing issue is crucial! That's why I'm trying to clarify precisely what has and what hasn't been mentioned about it in the various reports to date.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
our posts crossed.
thats why i was asking,
sorry!!
(Message edited by jdpegg on March 31, 2005)
"All you need is positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
"and yet he failed to produce the Sphere volume we are all supposed to accept he had all along until several weeks after he excitedly announced that the quote could be found in a library book. "
To me, a key point.
In June of 1994, Barrett is asserting he hoaxed the Diary, yet basically produces no proof. He later says he had the Sphere book as early as 1989.
In December of 1994, 6 odd months later, he comes up with a copy to help his claim to have been the forger.
This angle of the case, while far more troubling to me than "Poste House" or "Match book empty", is far from conclusive to me. Bluntly, I believe nothing Barrett says.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 7:28 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
Since we can't trust Mike about anything, it would be interesting to know whether any other person confirmed Mike's story that he had this book, wouldn't it?
Meanwhile, I've read this whole discussion too many times and spent too much of my life in libraries and know too much about literature to take this discussion very seriously.
But carry on folks, perhaps there's a single reader out there who hasn't seen all this before.
All the best from the sunny land of pure repetition,
--John
|
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Hi dale
I understand your confussion about Mike Barrett and why he would confess to hoaxing something he did not create, which is why I spend most of yesterday sitting in a pub picking someone who seems to knows brains about this.
I think you have to get a perspective on the time period involved. When the diary first came to light, Barrets story on how he came by the diary. The experts who studied the Diary and the publication of the diary.
The brake up of Barretts marrage following a signing where he got very drunk. How he blamed the Diary and tried to get his marrage back together while his wife went off with one of the people involved. etc.
During this period Mike Barretts story changed considerably and he was unable to account for how the diary was created. Sometime later he had a detective working for him and his story improved but he has never given a full and accuated account of how he came by the diary (which is not a photograph album apparently but a 'memorabilia' book)
He claimed to have bought it at auction but the account he gave does not fit with any proceedure used by the auction house. His account, and OK he might have been drunk, but, does not fit with any number of the facts known about the Diary. His Daughter claims that he came in with the diary rapped in brown paper and has no recollection of it being made. The computer he wrote it on mysteriously disappears.
His wife claims it belonged to her father and that she gave it to him to give him something to do and stop drinking.
It goes on and on but basically the diary is a fairly sophisticated hoax and Barrett is an unlikely producer or even a patsie for that matter which makes the Diary a whole more facinating than if it were either real or a Hoax.
Because noone can work out who, why or where?
Anyway I have no axe to grind or position on the Diary but from what I gathered I think it very unlikely that Mike Barrett had anything to do with creating the Diary but I would love to know who did. (given that it wasnt the obvious)
Good night
Jeff |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
