|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through April 26, 2005 | Sir Robert Anderson | 50 | 1 | 4-26-05 10:15 am |
| Archive through April 28, 2005 | Jennifer D. Pegg | 50 | 1 | 4-28-05 12:34 pm |
| Archive through April 30, 2005 | Sir Robert Anderson | 50 | 1 | 4-30-05 11:15 pm |
| Archive through May 10, 2005 | Sir Robert Anderson | 50 | 1 | 5-10-05 10:20 am |
| Archive through May 13, 2005 | Sir Robert Anderson | 50 | 1 | 5-13-05 11:07 am |
| Archive through May 16, 2005 | Caroline Anne Morris | 50 | 1 | 5-16-05 7:17 am |
| Archive through May 28, 2005 | Caroline Anne Morris | 50 | 1 | 5-28-05 12:00 pm |
| Archive through October 24, 2005 | Chris Phillips | 50 | 1 | 10-24-05 1:33 pm |
| Archive through October 28, 2005 | Caroline Anne Morris | 50 | 1 | 10-28-05 6:37 am |
| Archive through November 02, 2005 | Caroline Anne Morris | 50 | 1 | 11-02-05 12:28 pm |
| Archive through November 07, 2005 | John V. Omlor | 50 | 1 | 11-07-05 6:05 pm |
| Archive through November 15, 2005 | Caroline Anne Morris | 50 | 1 | 11-15-05 7:35 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1885
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 7:51 am: | 
|
Ah, I love this routine.
Ms. Harris comes here and says repeatedly that there was some major "new twist" in the diary case in late 2003 and based upon that she has changed her opinion concerning the possibility of authenticity.
But when asked what this major "new twist" was (a fair question since she came here and mentioned it in public), she says it is "directly related to information I am not yet at liberty to reveal."
So let's review -- someone comes here and tells everyone she has important information about the question of authenticity and then, when pressed, refuses to tell everyone what it is.
Perhaps she has the names of the three forgers?
How the wheel turns.
Of course, since she has provided absolutely no evidence of any sort suggesting that any such information actually exists or that such a so-called "new twist" ever happened, her claim here amounts to nothing but smoke and there is no reason whatsoever to believe it.
In fact, it appears to be just another way of avoiding saying whether or not she agrees with Chris George and with all the other experts I have already mentioned who say James didn't write the diary.
She does, of course. But she needs some way to avoid saying she does. And so out comes the 2003 "new twist" fantasy. And then the quick retreat when asked about her public claim back into the "I'm not saying" shell.
Yup, I'm sure she'll be claiming knowledge of all sorts of things as we go along, including the names of those three forgers. When you don't have to back up anything you say with evidence or specific explanations, it's the easiest thing in the world to do.
Of course, it's pretty meaningless, too. But at least she can't criticize Melvin Harris anymore.
All the best,
--John
PS: Oops, that should be "Morris" in the second line of course. My mistake. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Hi All,
I'm finally ready to attack the ink question.
RJ wrote:
The whole point of why Robert Smith wanted a bottle a pre-1992 Diamine Ink came about because Diamine changed their formula because they found that it quickly faded.
I am going to email RJ to alert him to my response, because I think it’s very important that his statement be clarified.
Firstly, I need the source of RJ’s assertion that the formula was changed because it ‘quickly faded’.
Alec Voller was chief research chemist for Diamine Ink, and his formula for this manuscript ink was indeed altered from 1992, presumably to improve the quality, but I don’t recall reading how it was modified - or why, apart from RJ’s explanation that the pre-1992 formula ‘quickly faded’.
Three years later, in 1995, Voller was asked to examine the diary visually in front of witnesses and his findings were recorded and summarised in Shirley’s first Blake edition.
He concluded (my emphasis added):
That is not Diamine ink. What is conclusive is the physical appearance. If this were Diamine Manuscript ink or at least Diamine ink of recent manufacture, that is to say within the last 20 or 30 years, it would be blacker and more opaque than this. The opacity of this is very much poorer that one would have from Diamine Manuscript ink even if it were diluted. You see dilution would simply not produce this sort of effect.....
The fading that’s occurred is quite characteristic of permanent manuscript inks of some considerable age. They don’t fade evenly; you get two consecutive lines of writing, one of which remains quite legible and one fades badly.....
Now with a modern ink the effect you would get in the early part of the sentence would be a more opaque and denser appearance than the end of the sentence... but the reverse is true here..... you can see the irregular fading... with a modern ink you would get a regular fade-out along that line.
The critical point here is the length of time the ink has been on the paper..... we have 7,000 sachets [of powdered inks] tucked away in some cobwebby corner of Diamine. But if you add the appropriate quantity of water to the powder it would still look like new ink on the paper...
(Keith notices a strong line through ‘shiny knife’)
It is this sort of thing that rules out a modern diluted ink... you simply wouldn’t get as bold a line as that.
Here is a line with very little fading. [‘tis love that will finish me’].....
If you made up the ink in the way it is supposed to have been made up (as a modern forgery) it simply wouldn’t have faded to the extent that parts of the diary have faded.....
It’s hard to be dogmatic because the rate at which fading occurs is variable but... certainly the ink did not go on the paper within recent years... you are looking at a document which in my opinion is at least 90 years old [in 1995] and may be older.....
Now the suggestion put forward by modern hoax theorists is that Mike Barrett had inside knowledge about the ink used, and that it was RJ’s ‘quickly fading’ Diamine, which RJ also claims is chemically ‘compatible’ with the diary ink.
So shouldn’t the diary ink at least look a little bit compatible with Diamine, especially to the eye of the man who made the latter and decided it needed modifying? The writing remains unchanged in appearance from the day of Voller’s examination in 1995, and from the day in 1992 that Robert Smith first set eyes on it, and yet the ink alleged to have been used by our resourceful forger circa 1989 was made obsolete two years later because it was found to be substandard in some way and, according to RJ, it ‘quickly faded’.
Does this make any sense to anyone?
We are being asked to throw Voller’s observations out the window and replace them all with one more of Mike’s tales. And I don’t think it’s too unreasonable or unscientific of me to ask for one damn good reason why.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
Hi Caroline,
you saying the ink is definately not Diamine? Not being confrontational just asking
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
Well, if we're going to be "reasonable" and "scientific" about such things, then surely we should be relying on more than a "visual examination."
As Caroline herself has recently written:
"That's the problem. With such conflicting findings and beliefs, you just can't be sure that the diary ink is compatible with the pre-1992 Diamine formula."
Of course, when we are stuck with such "conflicting" scientific findings it would seem to me that there is one logical, sensible, and painfully obvious thing to do.
Solve the conflicts scientifically.
Until that happens, all this discussion is largely pointless.
In the meantime, I notice that a couple of days ago, Caroline also wrote this:
"it would be quite wrong of me to express views, put forward arguments or make claims, directly related to information I am not yet at liberty to reveal."
But, of course, that's exactly what's she's just done this past week.
She's come here and made the claim that something happened in 2003 in the alleged diary investigation. She's made the claim that an important "new twist" took place regarding the question of the diary's authenticity. She's made the claim that this "new twist" was so significant that it made her revise the way she writes and thinks about the diary. These claims are all apparently based on material she is "not at liberty to reveal." And yet she came here and made them anyway.
By her own definition, then, I guess that was "quite wrong" of her.
Of course, there's an honest and obvious way to clear it all up. Simply tell us what the 2003 "new twist" was. Back up the claim with actual information or evidence. After all, she was the one challenging someone's "credibility" when this all started. Perhaps she should do a little something to support her own.
She made the claim here, let's see her back it up.
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Incidentally, to add to the confusion, we should remember something Chris Phillips reminded us of only six months ago.
"Well, in 2001 Voller wrote to Peter Birchwood in response to a colour photocopy of a test letter written in 1995 by Nick Warren. Here is Peter's quotation, from his post of 7 June 2001:
"...the poor opacity and fading and bronzing that are apparent in your copy of Nick Warren's letter. These are aspects that can be drastically influenced by relatively small shifts in the conditions...One factor that can strongly affect both the initial result and the subsequent behavior of the ink , is the choice of paper and it may perhaps be that Nick's choice was not such as to bring out the best in the ink...I agree that the ink of Nick's letter has taken on an appearance similar to that of the Diary, as regards fading and bronzing..."
[my emphasis]
So apparently not even Voller's opinion is all that clear.
As Chris put it:
"If the ink of a 6 year-old letter could have taken on an appearance similar to that of the diary, it's difficult to see how Voller, who saw the diary in 1995, could be "certain" on the basis of its appearance that it hadn't been written 6 years before."
Still we're only dealing with a "visual examination" here.
You know, it almost sounds like some sort of actual analysis needs to be done to resolve these difficulties.
Or not.
--John
PS: The link to Chris's original post is here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=128857#POST128857
And you'll see Caroline's response there as well. Of course, since she's "not making any claims," (other than the one about the "new twist" she's been making recently and won't support), I'm not sure there's any reason for her to respond to any of this. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
No, I was quoting directly from Alec Voller, who actually made the stuff. And I'm waiting for a response from RJ to my specific questions.
Hi All,
I have no way of knowing exactly when Nick Warren's sample was written, what paper it was on, or what ink was used for it. The full details don't seem to be available. So I suppose anyone making claims about the nature of Warren's sample, based on Voller's comments, would feel responsible for obtaining all the relevant details and getting Warren's sample tested if necessary.
Or maybe not.
Where is Chris Phillips by the way? He made a few claims but ran away when asked to cough up towards tests to support them. Yet his pearls of wisdom are now being fondly recalled as if the double standard doesn't stand out a mile.
It must be my turn for the continuation of the personal campaign, since all the recent efforts against Robert Smith backfired.
I don't even have to mention the unmentionable now - it's being given free publicity on my behalf and will almost certainly be flogged to death. Seriously, there's one born every minute. 
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 17, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1888
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Caroline begins her latest contribution to this discussion by saying,
"I have no way of knowing..."
And, logically speaking, the discussion should end right there.
She doesn't know whether the ink is similar to, different from, or even identical to Diamine or any other ink.
So all this amounts to is wind (and the expression of rhetorical desire).
And of course, she once again fails to back up the claims she made here about the important events of 2003.
I suspect that by now no one is surprised.
It's just business as usual,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 77
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
John
I sell militaria on eBay. When you buy a new computer, could I have your old keyboard? I'm going to sell it as a weapon used in the Ink Thread Wars.
Yours Truly,
Eddie
p.s. Just kiddin of course. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1889
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Hi Eddie,
Absolutely. Perhaps, though, I should put it on E-Bay like this item, which has the best description I've seen there in a long time.
http://www.stpetetimes.com/2005/11/17/Floridian/A_fool_and_his_pants_.shtml
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 79
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Hi John,
Thanks for posting that. A very hard description to beat. Even on eBay !
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
She doesn't know whether the ink is similar to, different from, or even identical to Diamine or any other ink.
Nor have I claimed to know. I am asking RJ about his claims, that pre-1992 Diamine was withdrawn because it 'quickly faded' and that it is 'compatible' with the diary ink.
I don't know either of those things, which is why I'm asking questions.
And if and when RJ provides the answers, I'll have more information to assess.
That's what happens as we learn more stuff, but still don't know the full story; we reassess our views and move forward.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1907
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Of course, if one refuses to back up one's public claims with specific evidence or explanations, learning "more stuff" here becomes impossible. You expect RJ to do it. Why not do it yourself?
But this discussion should now move to the Universal thread, where it is already taking place.
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
What happened to my thread!!!!
five words!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 758
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Dear Caz - The best place to get the low-down on Diamine ink is from Mr. Voller. As you may recall, I attempted to get the tape recordings of Mr. Voller's examination of the bronzing some months ago as a begining step in a proposal of a new examination of the diary's current stage of bronzing. Of the two people who had known copies of the tape, one had no way of duplicating it, and the other said they were too busy with professional projects at the moment and would thus have to consider my request for a copy to be of "low priority." I have never heard back.
My statements about the quality of pre-1992 Diamine Ink were based on my memory of one of Melvin Harris's posts on the old boards. I will eventually look up the exact wording, though, unfortunately, I must also consider this to be of "low priority." But why not cut to the chase? What is your understanding of why Mr. Voller changed the formula for Diamine Ink? How will this change anything, or do you disagree with John O. that the only sensible way to determine anything meaningful would be another set of tests, perhaps ones comparing the diary to the known formula for Diamine? And why not have Robert just pull the diary out of his safe and compare it to the bronzing as already noted? All the best. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on November 18, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
My thread didn't even last 24 hours!!!!!!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
Jenni,
Don't give up hope. It's going to work, I know it.
See you there,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 106
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Jenni, John, Caz,
What we are doing now(sorry if this is the wrong thread) is comparing certain letters that are written in Mary Kelly's room. I'm sure some of you can do more research and prove this Diary is real witout expensive Ink tests. We found B's and Y's that look almost identical to the B's and y's in the Diary.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Response moved to Universal Maybrick thread.
--John |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 759
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
"In January 1995 Mr Voller kindly made up a special batch of the original iron gall based Diamine Manuscript ink and sent it to surgeon Nick Warren. On January 6, 1995, Nick wrote me a letter using Voller's ink: it reads, in part, "Dear Melvin, I am writing these words in 'Diary' ink, ie., the original Diamine black MS recreated for us by Alec Voller. As you can see the effect is very watery, astonishingly so at first...looking forward to receiving the colour photocopy, Yours Truly Jack the Ripper. Best wishes Nick." Today the ink on that letter looks aged and its bronzed in parts.--Melvin Harris, 3 November, 1999
(Message edited by rjpalmer on November 21, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Many thanks for your responses.
I’m sorry you’ve had no luck yet getting hold of the Voller tape. I haven’t heard it either, but at least Shirley quotes this much in Blake, regarding the bronzing as at October 30th 1995, from our Diamine horse’s mouth:
…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 words “building up”. This tells me that it is genuinely old…'
I am always suggesting that a test comparing the diary ink directly to ‘the known formula for Diamine’ is the obvious answer. But if it’s possible, why the heck didn’t Melvin commission it instead of the dicey test for the presence of chloroacetamide, which he apparently told Maria Birchwood was used in old inks but in a slightly different form? If true, that could only make a positive identification of the modern kind even more tricky than some experts already considered it to be.
You asked:
And why not have Robert just pull the diary out of his safe and compare it to the bronzing as already noted?
Well I thought your idea was to get independent witnesses round the table first, and preferably include Voller, or other experts who saw the physical diary up close in the early days.
But since you asked, of course I asked Robert if he would show me the diary again (I did point out on the boards that I had seen it quite recently), and of course not long before that, Jenni was able to see it in the process of getting it examined by Dr Platt.
To non-expert eyes, the very slight bronzing Voller could barely see ten years ago, in one or two places, when held in the light from the window, can still be described as ‘barely visible’ today. There is no obvious bronzing, though, to my untrained eye, nor any way of telling that the bronzing today is not exactly the same, no more pronounced or extensive, than it was in 1995 (nor indeed in 1992: short of examining every line on every page, no expert before Voller need have found any of the bronzing he observed; doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been there).
The partial and irregular fading Voller observed (and as I posted previously) is still apparent, and so too are the bold lines that had hardly faded if at all in 1995. If it was written in pre-1992 Diamine, by a hoaxer who couldn’t have known the formula would be modified from 1992, let alone why, he was lucky that it wasn’t because the ink fades to nothing or turns bright purple after ten years on the paper. I doubt the hoaxer experimented first and then waited ten years to be sure his chosen ink wouldn’t alter in appearance from when it was first seen, examined and copied.
Many thanks for reposting Nick Warren’s description of Diamine, as he was applying it: the effect is very watery, astonishingly so at first…, and Melvin’s observation, four years later, that the ink looks aged and its bronzed in parts.
I don’t know if we can usefully apply that information to the diary ink’s appearance since 1992. Did you find your reference to pre-1992 Diamine ‘quickly’ fading? You see, if the diary ink quickly faded after being applied, it wasn’t a ‘regular fade-out along the line’, which Voller said was typical of modern inks; it has faded badly in certain places but doesn't appear to have faded at all in others; and, crucially, all the fading that was ever going to happen had happened, as far as I can gather, by the time it was first seen by inquisitive eyes, nearly fourteen years ago.
Again, how did the hoaxer know that the visible ageing process of pre-1992 Diamine was already complete when he handed over his hoax? Did he ask the only man likely to know if this would be the case: Voller?
I should explain that my own understanding of why and how Voller changed that formula, and what the improvement was, is next to nothing. It was your ‘quickly faded’ remark that made me wonder about your source.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 22, 2005) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
