|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:07 pm: | 
|
FROM MELVIN HARRIS
(NOTE: There's been discussion lately about the AFI ink test of the alleged 'Maybrick' document. I thought I'd reprint below Melvin Harris's explanation of how these tests came about, since I don't believe it was ever reprinted on this site. Some might find it of interest. RP)
MODERN INK USED TO FAKE ' RIPPER' DAIRY, by Melvin Harris.
"Here is the sequence of event leading to my discovery of the ink formula and
the realisation that this formula alone could yield proof positive that the
diary was a recent fake:
On June 24 1994 Mike Barrett made his 'confession' to Harold Brough; this
was then published in the June 27 edition of the Liverpool Post. Next day
Barrett's solicitors issued a retraction.
But the damage was done. Barrett had already given us the name of the shop
where the faker's ink came from. This shop ( Bluecoats Art Shop) confirmed
that they had indeed sold a special Manuscript Ink, made up by Diamine of
Liverpool. I rang Diamine's chief chemist, Alex Voller, and asked him for
the formula of this ink. He obliged by stating that it contained iron salts
and nigrosine as colouring matter, with CHLOROACETMIDE as its preservative.
Now chloroacetamide is a modern product first used in ink manufacture by
Voller in 1974, so its mere presence would prove that the diary was a fake
beyond all doubt. If found in combination with iron and nigrosine it would
prove that the ink used was Diamine Manuscript, since this is the only
modern writing ink known to use nigrosine. (Nigrosine is normally used in
endorsing inks, embossing inks, glazing inks and printing inks. Its use by
Voller in a writing ink was an experiment which failed, since the ink gave a
washed-out to the writing. This was something I remarked on when I first
saw the diary pages. )
Earlier tests had already shown that the diary ink contained nigrosine and
iron, so only one test needed to be made-that for the preservative.
On a number of occasions I had warned Paul Feldman that the diary was a
blatant fake, and I provided him with firsst-class reasons, but it became
obvious that it was next to impossible to have a reasonable conversation
with him. He was determined to sell his film rights and was not prepared to
consider anthing which stood in his way. Despite this I made one last
attempt to get him to do the honourable thing and get the ink fully tested.
I approached Dr. Nick Eathaugh, who had made earlier tests, and asked him to
inform Feldman of the dangers of proceeding any further without checking the
ink for the give-away chloroacetamide.
At the same time I anticipated Feldman's resistance by contacting Robert
Kuranz in the US and found that he still had 12 of the ink spots removed
from the diary pages during the Warner Books investigation. I asked him to
retain six and send me the other six. He cooperated and sent over six of
the spots in the special gelatine capsule he had used for storing them. At
the same time surgeon Nick Warren obtained an unused bottle of the Diamine
Manuscript Ink and a sample of the chlorocetamide used by Diamine. The ink
came from the Bluecoats shop; the preservative from Alex Voller." (end of excerpt)
(Harris's discussion of the AFI tests and their results are already available elsewhere on this site.)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Its use by Voller in a writing ink was an experiment which failed, since the ink gave a
washed-out [appearance? look?] to the writing. This was something I remarked on when I first saw the diary pages.
Now this is interesting, because there was only one occasion that Melvin could have seen any diary pages, and that was at the October 1993 book launch, and only then if he managed to glance at the two pages on display while no one clocked him doing so. So 'when I first saw...' is already misleading.
And if Melvin had seen more of the pages at a second or subsequent viewing, he would have realised that his eyes had deceived him the 'first' time he took a quick butchers, because at least as late as 2001, the diary ink was looking anything but 'washed out'. So how does that work?
At the same time surgeon Nick Warren obtained an unused bottle of the Diamine Manuscript Ink and a sample of the chlorocetamide used by Diamine. The ink came from the Bluecoats shop; the preservative from Alex Voller.
So this would explain why Nick got hold of the wrong Diamine formula, and no one has yet been able to locate the right one for comparison purposes. The formula that failed was the pre-1992 version. By the time Nick got his ink from the Bluecoats shop, they would have been stocking the new improved formula.
What I don't get is why normally rational commentators prefer to pin their hopes on non-experts in ink chemistry with dirty great axes to grind, and a tale originating with Mike Barrett, whose relationship with the truth is so problematical, while playing down or ignoring simple statements of opinion that come from unbiased close examination of the diary itself, or ink taken directly from it, such as those made in October 1995 by Alec Voller, who was chief chemist for Diamine ink, Nick Eastaugh in 1992, and Leeds in 1994.
If anyone wants to argue that Melvin was more qualified than Voller, to recognise pre-1992 Diamine on the page, or recognise when it wasn't pre-1992 Diamine, they will have their work cut out.
Voller, who actually made the stuff, declared upon looking at the diary:
That is not Diamine ink. What is conclusive is the physical appearance. If this were Diamine...of recent manufacture, that is to say within the last 20 or 30 years, it would be blacker and more opaque that this.
No mention of Diamine bronzing extensively, or going brown in colour, within three years.
So what are we meant to make of Melvin's assertion that Nick Warren's sample written in Diamine had done so? If this wasn't the pre-1992 formula in any case, his experiment has no possible relevance to the diary ink.
Furthermore, the chemical-by-chemical analyses done by Eastaugh and Leeds produced very similar results, yet neither seems to have corresponded with the pre-1992 formula for Diamine.
Robert Smith asked last year if anyone could locate a bottle of pre-1992 Diamine, so that a straightforward chemical comparison could be organised. If the various chemical peaks all corresponded with those of Eastaugh and Leeds, we could all stop speculating. Without access to this ink, the most reputable lab in the world, however well-equipped, won't finally resolve the chloroacetamide issue.
The inconsistencies regarding the solubility findings can't be resolved now. Eastaugh explained that once three to five years had passed, it was too late to show how recently the ink could have been applied before that.
I would like to know what other chemical inconsistences emerged from previous testing, that the latest methods in chemical analysis could tackle head on.
It's pretty obvious that as things stand we are never all going to agree with AAD's view that the ten-years-old-and-counting chloroacetamide issue was, and is, conclusive evidence of the diary ink's youth.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 17, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Caroline writes:
It's pretty obvious that as things stand we are never all going to agree with AAD's view that the ten-years-old-and-counting chloroacetamide issue was, and is, conclusive evidence of the diary ink's youth.
But it's not pretty obvious why. No, I take that back.
It is pretty obvious why "we are all never going to agree" with that.
And therein lies the only real problem.
Cutting to the (he)art of the matter,
--John
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Caz Morris claims above the ink used by Warren for his experiment was not pre-1992 Diamine.
However, Melvin Harris wrote (5 Dec., 2000):
["Alec Voller] made up samples of the original Diamine manuscript ink and sent these to both Smith & Co. and Nick Warren, for them to experiment with."
So, in other words, Alec Voller himself mixed up the ink. If Caz wishes to dispute this, I suggest she contact Nick Warren.
Regardless, the matter is quite irrelevant in regards to the AFI test. We know the exact formula of pre-1992 Diamine. Mr. Voller willingly supplied it.
|
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
It is interesting that one of the authors of a book that has had pretty poor sales figures is doing all in their power to try and keep the story going in the public eye. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1657
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
But you also quoted Melvin saying:
At the same time surgeon Nick Warren obtained an unused bottle of the Diamine Manuscript Ink and a sample of the chlorocetamide used by Diamine. The ink came from the Bluecoats shop; the preservative from Alex Voller.
So it's not clear which Diamine formula Nick Warren passed on to AFI (along with the chloroacetamide, which would have introduced the possibility of contamination simply by being there), and which one he experimented with.
But it is clear what Melvin said about Nick's experiment with Diamine showing extensive bronzing within three years. And it is clear what Voller had to say about the diary ink's appearance being conclusive - Diamine would have looked blacker and more opaque.
I'm only comparing conflicting statements to see where it leads us. And, as usual, Melvin's observations are considered more valuable than Voller's, and I don't agree that they should be.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Caroline writes:
"So it's not clear which Diamine formula Nick Warren passed on to AFI (along with the chloroacetamide, which would have introduced the possibility of contamination simply by being there)..."
Putting aside for the moment the question of the ink and who mixed it and where Nick sent it, I have a question.
Caroline, please explain exactly what you know about how these materials were packaged and sent that would allow you to just come here and claim that the possibility of contamination was ever introduced into this process.
I'm not going to say anything (yet) about letters to the labs and questions about sealed packets and all the rest.
I just want to know exactly what knowledge you have about precisely how these materials were shipped and handled that allows you to make such an insinuation?
Or are you just making this up as you go along and hoping no one notices?
Do you even know whether or not the materials were sent in the same package? Or even in the same shipment?
Do you know what sort of container the ink was in? What the chloracetamide was in? Can you say anything for sure about any of this, or was that parenthetical aside just a casual inference based on nothing (except rhetorical desire).
I'd very much like to see the documentary evidence you have for this claim about the possibility of contamination being introduced.
I trust you'll be able to produce some,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Hi All,
The above post demonstrates just how easy it is to become contaminated by the desire to see words that aren't there. The source of this contamination could well be the FM thread, where we have recently been led to believe that imagining non-existent words is only one step away from seeing the face of Jesus Christ in the shaving mirror every morning, and I no longer doubt it.
...simply by being there... was what I wrote and what I meant. Can anyone else see any words referring to 'sealed packets', or the 'shipping' or 'handling' of same?
The only reason I can see for 'putting aside' all questions relating to the ink itself and the test results was to inject a bit of pure malice, by accusing me of making some sort of insinuation that I didn't make and have no intention of making.
I was not referring to the sealed packages of either the chloroacetamide or the dots of diary matter, as they reached AFI's premises. I was referring to later, when AFI opened the stuff to carry out their commission. I presume that was the point of sending it to the lab in the first place, for identification purposes, so that AFI would know exactly what they had to look for in the diary dots.
And herein lies the fundamental problem I was referring to. Because chloroacetamide was there in the lab, and presumably in contact with the same equipment used to analyse the diary dots, the potential for contamination was there, like it or not.
It's a factor that labs wage a constant battle against, and few can claim to be able to eliminate the risk 100%.
The bottom line is that no one, including AFI, has ever shown that the diary ink is even similar, chemically or in appearance, to pre-1992 Diamine. In fact, all the direct evidence points to it being dissimilar.
AFI's result doesn't alter that fact.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 22, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
Well god maybe it wasn't written with Diamine ink!!!
most importantly it wasnt written in JAMES MAYBRICK'S HANDWRITING, so
tin match box empty!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
OK, everyone, let's go back.
Originally, this is exactly what Caroline wrote:
"So it's not clear which Diamine formula Nick Warren passed on to AFI (along with the chloroacetamide, which would have introduced the possibility of contamination simply by being there)..."
Then I asked her if she had any information at all, any evidence, any documentation, that would allow her to claim that the possibility of contamination was ever introduced at any point n this process.
Now, read her entire last post carefully.
Can you find any such evidence?
Of course not.
Why not?
Because she has none.
But that didn't stop her from dropping the dream of possible contamination on us, from offering us all the lingering rhetorical spectre of it, for her own personal, interested, and completely subjective reasons
There is no evidence of any contamination.
There is no account which even allows anyone to suspect there was contamination.
Nothing.
But perhaps she just figures if she drops the possibility of it in a parenthetical aside and says no more about it, the possibility will be established quietly and no one will notice how she did it.
Well, it doesn't work like that.
She's making stuff up again and when asked to provide the evidence for the claim that such a problem occurred or that the possibility of contamination was in fact introduced into the process at any point, she cannot do so.
It's a pattern here.
And more and more the old hoax crowd seems to be relying on it and more and more they are starting to read like our old friend Paul Feldman -- they have actually begun to employ his rather peculiar style of argument and critical practice, and that's a dangerous turn of events for sure. Because now no claim is too unevidenced and purely speculative to be made, just as a hope or a dream or a desire, in a rhetorical question or in a parenthetical aside, without support, without documentation, without evidence.
When you have no theory, when your own scenario cannot account for one line after another in the text or for the modern handwriting formations or for the lack of provenance etc., this is all that's left. You have to become Feldmaniacal. And intellectually speaking, you have given up.
Watching it happen,
--John
PS: Everyone please notice the word "presumably" in Caroline's post. It tells you volumes about what she does and does not know. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
Ah,
you used the word Feldmaniacal!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
ps you mean
'And herein lies the fundamental problem I was referring to. Because chloroacetamide was there in the lab, and presumably in contact with the same equipment used to analyse the diary dots, the potential for contamination was there, like it or not. '?
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Jenni,
I did indeed.
And yes.
And notice how even that speculative rationalization is different than the original parenthetical comment within a sentence about Nick Warren passing the materials on to the lab.
This is a fascinating rhetorical evolution here, and it is indicative of precisely the way claims get slipped into the discussion and then taken for granted. But a little careful reading will reveal that these desperate claims have no evidence to support them and are built on purely subjective ideas concerning vague things that might "presumably" have happened although there's no record of any sort that they even could have.
It's an insidious and irrational way of reading and of writing and it should not be trusted.
And it's a developing pattern around here.
Thanks and all the best,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
It's a factor that labs wage a constant battle against, and few can claim to be able to eliminate the risk 100%.
Do you speak from your personal experience of scientific laboratories, or is this what you've read somewhere (or are you just making it up as you go along)?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
are the ink tests being called into question, which ones, why?
"All you need is positivity"
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Hi
Caroline, please explain exactly what you know about how these materials were packaged and sent that would allow you to just come here and claim that the possibility of contamination was ever introduced into this process.
ps you mean
'And herein lies the fundamental problem I was referring to. Because chloroacetamide was there in the lab, and presumably in contact with the same equipment used to analyse the diary dots, the potential for contamination was there, like it or not. '?
I imagine the test used on the samples was HPLC or GC of some form. And here comes Mr Posters crash course on the above two:
A column is filled with a material. This material is one of amany different types, modified or unmodified chemically. Over this material flows a gas or a liquid of many different types (gas in Gas Chromatography, liquid in High Performance or Pressure Chromatography).
The solid is the Stationary Phase, the gas or liquid is the Mobile Phase.
The sample is introduced to the Mobile Phase stream as a soultion by injection in HPLC or as flash volatilised vapour in GC.
The constituents in the sample partition themselves between the two phases. When in the Mobile Phase they move along the column. Under different conditions (temp, flow rate etc), different chemicals move along the column at different speeds. Their appearance at the end of the column is used to determine their "retention time" which is often used as a characteristic of the chemical under the conditions employed to effect the separation. For normal GC and HPLC, the signal the chemical produces as it passes out of the column is a peak on a chart or a screen or whatever.
That peak is only characteristic to the chemical in relation to the time it took to appear or the time the chemical took to pass through the column. Therfore, to identify the chemical, it is necessary to "run" a standard solution of the chemical being assayed over the column to determine its retention time. If the unknown has the same RT as the standard, thats accepted as ONE identifying characteristic (that never being enough to assure identification). And there is the source of contamination. Typically, the standard is run and then the flow rate or temperature of the column is increased to flush out the standard. This often takes place for ten to twelve hours to ensure complete removal. But because of teh chemistry of the process and the dead spaces in the column and residues in the injection chamber, contamination in HPLC and GC is EXTREMELY COMMON especially in university labs. Thats why GC analysis alone is never acceptable as 100% certain identification and must be combined with other techniques to be ceratin.
Aletrnatively, the sample may be identified witha Mass spectrometer attached to the end of the column. This smashes up the molecule into bits as they come out of the column and compares the pattern of the bits to libraries to affect identification. Thats OK but the fact is that the columns in the GC/HPLC part are subject to the same contaminants as previously described.
A column can be used to analyse samples for compound X for 10 weeks in hundreds of samples. Each of these samples also contains below detection limit levels of compound Y. The conditions of the separation are designed to effect efficienct separation of compound X and under these conditions compound Y does not move through the column. In this case it is now building up on the column unless GLP is in operation in th elab.
Then one day someone comes in and wants a sample analysed for Y. Instead of using a fresh column (money) and a new injection chamber liner (money), the conditions on a general column are set to effect separation of Y and the sample is run. The build up of contaminant Y is now released and appears in the results for the sample even though it was never there.
Contamination is probable, not only possible. Thats why you need many labs to analyse with appropruate investement to ensure reproducible results. The results to date are not reliable.
Mr poster |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
The events that Mr. Poster seems to be insinuating might have happened at AFI in his second to last paragraph did not happen. Dr. Simpson left a detailed description of her procedures. Voller later reviewed this and was suitably impressed.
I think more worthwhile research than checking the diary for arsenic would be to inquire if Anne Graham still has her cancelled cheques for 1991. I would be particularly interested in the sequence extending on either side of the purchase of the maroon diary.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 22, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
I love how people come here, jump on an insidious and completely unevidenced parenthetical aside by a woman who was obviously just making stuff up and then the first thing you know we're talking about "doubts" concerning a process whose integrity has never been seriously questioned and which has impressed even the experts.
The desperation is stunning and the way the whole thing was introduced and took shape would certainly make Paul Feldman proud.
As intellectual history, however, it is downright embarrassing.
This thread is a perfect example of why Diary World is at home in the dark and dingy basement of the Ripper studies house.
Continually amazed, but never really surprised,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
"I think more worthwhile research than checking the diary for arsenic..."
Dr. Eastaugh has suggested that the black powder found in the gutter of the Diary was possibly bone black. That's something worth confirming.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
I was asked about my reference to Anne Graham's cancelled cheques for 1991. In our strange American dialect, a 'cancelled' cheque is one that was paid, and made it through the bank system. More appropriate would have been for me to have written "checks for 1992." As some here are no doubt aware, Barrett ordered a Victorian Diary from a second-hand bookseller in March 1992, a short time before bringing the Maybrick Diary to London for the first time. This was finally paid by a cheque signed by Anne Graham in May, 1992. Frankly, I've always viewed this purchase with enormous suspicion. What legitimate reason would he have for doing such a thing?
I haven't owned Feldman's book for three years or more, so I'm working from memory here; my apologies. I seem to recall that little Caroline Barrett remembered her father bringing the Diary home 'wrapped in brown paper.' This seems like a credible memory to me; it's the sort of thing a child would recall. It seems like an odd detail, however. Why would it be wrapped in brown paper? I've ordered lots of books from second-hand booksellers in the UK....very often (almost always) they show up wrapped in brown paper. This set me to thinking. Since there is documented evidence that Barrett diid buy a diary through the mails in March 1992, could little Caroline have been remembering such a thing? If Barrett didn't have his own a bank account (which has been suggested) then his purchases in 1992 might well have left a 'paper-trail' through Graham's bank statements. This is what I thought was worth checking out. RP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Since you are in contact with Keith Skinner, who investigated the ordering and payment for the little maroon diary, it may be worth checking with him to see if he has any further information along the lines you suggest, or can offer a way forward, if you still think it's likely to bear fruit after discussing it with him.
If you recall, when you suggested that the Maybrick Diary's binding should be examined, assuming this had not been done, it turned out that a professional bookbinder, and friend of Don Rumbelow, had already been there, done it and got the 'typical Victorian guard book' T shirt.
Anyway, my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the purchase of the maroon diary would also make sense if Mike had acquired the guard book, without knowing anything about its true origins, and didn't know what to make of it. Was this what a real Victorian diary would look like? Perhaps he was naturally curious (and not a little worried), at the same time that he made his initial phone call to Doreen, with a view to going public with the document.
I'm not sure what form your 'enormous suspicion' takes, unless you believe Mike was hoping to obtain, at this late stage, a more suitable book for the diary text.
However daft we know Mike has been at times, this would surely have been a fatal move, if the maroon diary had arrived and proved large enough and of the right date (instead of being tiny and dated after Maybrick's death), and he had recreated the whole thing between telling Doreen about it and bringing it to London. Wouldn't he have had to make excuses for not showing it to her for another 3-5 years at least, so that Eastaugh and co would not be able to prove immediately that the ink had been applied within that time?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Caroline offers us an interesting response to RJ's question about the maroon diary.
Now then, I want you all to go to your Casebook archive CDs, find the "search" feature, and type in the words "little maroon diary."
That'll save you having to read much else here for awhile.
Just trying to keep your weekends free,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1666
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
Hi again RJ,
The events that Mr. Poster seems to be insinuating might have happened at AFI in his second to last paragraph did not happen. Dr. Simpson left a detailed description of her procedures. Voller later reviewed this and was suitably impressed.
However impressed Alec Voller was with AFI’s procedures, it’s their October 1994 result that we are concerned with here, and what we may or may not be entitled to conclude from it, bearing in mind the various results and professional opinions of others. Voller was stating exactly a year later, in October 1995, that the appearance of the diary writing told him conclusively that the ink was not Diamine (and also, in his opinion, certainly the ink did not go on the paper within recent years). If anyone should know, it’s the chief research chemist at Diamine, as he was then. But I am not accepting his word for it 100%; I am simply suggesting it might be wise not to discount it prematurely.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
Hi Mr Poster,
I wonder if you could comment on the following observations and questions I have, relating to the Diamine/chloroacetamide issues, as I understand them (and I may be wrong, in case Chris Phillips is watching):
Alec Voller claimed that there would need to be nitrogen present if chloroacetamide were in the ink. Neither Leeds nor Nick Eastaugh found any nitrogen in the diary ink.
The chemical analyses of the diary ink carried out by Leeds and Eastaugh gave very similar results. Eastaugh’s analysis (not just his procedures) also impressed Bob Kuranz of the Rendell team. Yet these analyses didn’t tally with the chemical formula given by Voller for his pre-1992 Diamine ink. Leeds concluded, as Voller did the following year from his visual examination, that the diary ink is not Diamine.
Leeds also carried out two tests for the presence of chloroacetamide; the first picking up a tiny amount of the preservative. This was attributed to contamination from the control, and they decided to retest. This time they found no chloroacetamide, despite having been able to detect the minutest trace previously.
I don’t know whether you would agree, but I wonder if the Leeds tests were too rashly condemned in certain quarters as fatally flawed, when they simply reacted responsibly and correctly to an all too common problem, by acknowledging they may have one, dealing with it to the best of their ability, and then retesting to check the reliability of the first result. The negative second result satisfied them that the chloroacetamide did not come from the ink itself.
On the other hand, AFI were not asked to analyse the diary ink chemically, or to compare it in any way to pre-1992 Diamine. Their brief was simply to test the ink samples for the presence of chloroacetamide, which they did - once to my knowledge.
Please be gentle with me, because I am hopeless when it comes to science, but you stated that ‘to identify the chemical, it is necessary to "run" a standard solution of the chemical being assayed over the column to determine its retention time. If the unknown has the same RT as the standard, thats accepted as ONE identifying characteristic (that never being enough to assure identification). And there is the source of contamination. Typically, the standard is run and then the flow rate or temperature of the column is increased to flush out the standard’.
My question is why couldn’t it be done t’other way around, ie run the unknown [the diary ink] first, flush that out and then run the chemical being assayed [chloroacetamide], and compare, thus eliminating the risk of the latter contaminating the former by being run first?
Your observations, and reasons for stating that ‘GC analysis alone is never acceptable as 100% certain identification and must be combined with other techniques to be certain’, are in line with the October 1995 opinion of John C. Roberts, Professor of Paper Science, UMIST.
Shirley Harrison claims that she ‘wrote to every ink expert and scientific group’ she could find in the wake of the conflicting AFI and Leeds results. Dr Morris of Dow Chemicals gave what she describes as a ‘typical’ response, advising that whenever the first large scale commercial use of chloroacetamide in ink began, some small shop could have made its own ink and tried various additives.
And Dr David Briggs, of ICI’s Wilton Research Centre, responded to Shirley’s request for estimates for new tests by advising that it would all amount to several days’ work at the cost of £1,000 a day. He also stressed that it was far from a simple standard test, and that, given ‘the great uncertainties’, he could not recommend pursuing this approach.
I suspect it will eventually have to be acknowledged by even the most ardent fan of Mike’s “I bought the diary ink there” story, that AFI failed to prove it, whether a trace of chloroacetamide was in the actual diary ink or not, and that all the other evidence points away from Diamine being the culprit.
I hope RJ’s proposal is in the process of being taken up. I would actually like the eyes of as many as possible of the early diary examiners, from 1992 onwards, to look again at the writing today, so their reactions and views can be recorded.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Two quick points,
One -- Caroline Morris writes, However impressed Alec Voller was with AFI’s procedures, it’s their October 1994 result that we are concerned with here..."
But it was SHE who first raised the specter of contamination, in her slippery little parenthetical aside -- completely without any specific evidence of any sort to support such a claim in this case. So it was SHE who, via that aside, created the discussion about procedure in the first place.
To argue now that we are not "concerned" with the topic is either simple forgetfulness or deliberately feigned blindness to her own rhetoric for her own purposes.
Second -- I love it when she cites experts that say things like this:
"whenever the first large scale commercial use of chloroacetamide in ink began, some small shop could have made its own ink and tried various additives."
"Some small shop could have..."
That's the hope here. That's the gasp. That's the sort of vague, remote, we don't know but perhaps, we don't have a record of but... sort of argument that the old hoax theory is always having to rely on. That's the sort of prayer they offer for the Poste House, for the "tin matchbox empty" line, for the mistakes about the murders, for the lack of provenance, for the library miracle, for everything every time.
You'd think after about the umpteenth time you needed to rely on a "maybe, perhaps, it wouldn't be likely or common, but..., we don't have a record of, but..., it's against the odds, however..." sort of desperate prayer that you need in order to replace simple common sense explanations, they'd start to see a pattern developing.
But no, in some cases I guess the light truly can be blinding.
Having a fine Sunday,
--John
PS: I don't suppose the person who cited it is now going to post the actual full and complete text of Dr. Morris's response so that we might judge for ourselves the overall implications and significance of it?
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 594
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Dear Caz,
I have indeed been in contact with Keith Skinner and he reminded me that Anne Graham, when presenting the stub for the purchase of the maroon diary, had tore out all other stubs, so there is evidently no way knowing what other purchases Barrett may or may not have made. I remain curious as to why the diary was said to be wrapped in brown paper.
"However daft we know Mike has been at times, this would surely have been a fatal move."
I don't see why. When were Barrett's financial affairs ever investigated? It's fairly clear even Scotland Yard, when probing the diary's publishers, were unaware of the maroon diary. As far as I know, the only reason the existance of this diary ever came to light is through the sworn affidavits that you and Sir Robert are finding so pointless.
As to your theory of Barrett's purchase:
"Perhaps he was naturally curious (and not a little worried), at the same time that he made his initial phone call to Doreen."
What evidence is there that Barrett contacted the second-hand bookseller after his appointment with Doreen Montgomery? After reviewing the events as we know them, this appears to be only supposition based on the estimated time it would take a bookseller to locate such a curious item.
Until further evidence becomes avaiable, I believe the Diary was initially written as a piece of fiction by two people
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 2:34 am: |
|
Hello
"I think more worthwhile research than checking the diary for arsenic..."
}Dr. Eastaugh has suggested that the black powder found in the gutter of the Diary was possibly bone black. That's something worth confirming.
It certainly is.Bone black is carbon with calcium carbonate added. Shirley Harrison suggested it (or carbon/charcoal which it also may be I suppose) was used as a counter agent against poisons. Or a drying agent (for ink?).It may also have been a colouring agent used to colour arsenic after 1851 to stop it being mixed with your sugar or whatever. I think Ms Harrisons idea that it was being used as a counter agent is just fanciful. If we are going to identify it as bonebalck or whatever then just assay it for arsenic and be done with it.
Hello RJP.
I wasnt actually insinuating against AFI. I was just presenting the familiar to all chemists scenario of how contamination is likley as opposed to being unlikely as hypothesised earlier on in the thread. But this is a good sign of how we accept expert opinion when it suits us and dont when it doesnt. It is my longstanding experience that a procedure, which stands up to all inspection and review, can still produce wrong results. Thats why labs have QA/QC. If procedures always produced the right result there would be no need. Once again - get the test done by a selection of labs. The technical material as it stands today would not stand up in court.
Regarding paper trails of cheques. I doubt a working class family in '90's Britain would be very fastidious about holding on to such things.
hello John.
I doubt GC analysis impresses the experts. Its "bog" standard, found in virtually every lab in the country that deals with organics, is a standard 1st year undergrad apparatus and once again, I repeat, this is the only time in my whole life that I have seen the results of a once off GC analysis, ON THEIR OWN, being accepted as proof as to the presence or abscence of a compound. And I seriously doubt that AFI were using it in some kind of revolutionary way.
IF you were caught for drunk driving, a once off GC analysis of your urine (the most standard test on the planet) would be laughed out of court. Thats why they give the suspect his little bottle full. So he can get it tested as well. But we accept a once off test in this case. hard to believe really.
To quote a famous theme tune:
"Sometimes you want to go
Where everybody knows your name,
and they're always glad you came.
You wanna be where you can see,
our troubles are all the same
You wanna be where everybody knows
Your name."
And that would be the thread inhabited by your purple dragon friend I guess.
Mr Poster
} |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
" the only reason the existance of this diary ever came to light is through the sworn affidavits that you and Sir Robert are finding so pointless. "
R.J. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe I've ever even typed the word affidavit on this message board.
What I have said, and I think most have concurred with, is that any scenario of events that depends solely on Barrett's statements is on tenuous ground. Wasn't it you that said Mike may not know when he is or is not telling the truth?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Funny,
I can think of no "scenario of events that depends solely on Barrett's statements" that anyone has ever offered here.
So Sir Robert's truism also seems to be irrelevant to the discussion.
Oh wait! I'm sorry. I take that back. I can think of one. The holy and most sacred miracle of the Liverpool Library. That's the only scenario of events I've ever heard anyone offer around here that depends solely on Mike Barrett's word.
Interesting choice.
Mr. Poster,
Now your reading has become just sloppy.
If you go back and check, you'll see that I was clearly referring to RJ's comment about Alec Voller being "suitably impressed" with Dr. Simpson's detailed account of her procedures, not the choice of tests or their results.
See, this is what happens sometimes when you don't bother to quote the post to which you are responding.
Go here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=127643#POST127643
and read that post and the post that follows it.
You'll then see why what you've just written to me has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying.
It's sad, really. You'd like to think that people could at least follow a discussion in which they are participating.
And incidentally, ever since he first arrived, our official Diary World mascot Figment (my little purple dragon friend) has been saying much the same thing you have been saying here about needing further testing.
And I still don't see you doing anything here to change the nature of Diary World or its discussions -- in fact, you seem to have fit right in almost instantly, falling into the same patterns we have been tracing here for years. I'm pleased that you so quickly became one of us.
It is indeed nice to know that some places never change, no matter who visits.
From one denizen to another,
--John (among the corpses) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Sir Robert-Actually, no; not exactly. What I believe I wrote was that two independent physicians suggested Barrett may have suffered from Korsokov's syndrome: permanent memory loss with a tendency to invent what he doesn't remember. I don't think this translates as Barrett being totally delusional, nor does it seem likely to me to be a complete explanation. I meekly suggest that Barrett's various statements over the years involve a myriad of conflicting motives and explanations, and that it is too simplistic to believe that the errors or lies in his confessions prove that he had no involvement in the hoax. His actions were suspicious long before Brough or Gray ever entered the equation.
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:04 pm: |
|
"I meekly suggest that Barrett's various statements over the years involve a myriad of conflicting motives and explanations, and that it is too simplistic to believe that the errors or lies in his confessions prove that he had no involvement in the hoax."
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Let's call them errors, not lies for the moment, so as to avoid arguing about something that isn't critical to the mystery. At a certain point in time, Barrett was in pretty dire financial circumstances, and trying to sell his story of how he hoaxed the Diary. And at that point, it looks to me that he was unable to offer much in the way of proof of authorship.
Involvement - and I assume you chose this word deliberately - is of course a different matter than being the actual Diarist. I think we can rule Barrett out as author based on the errors and mistruths in his assorted confessions.
(Message edited by sirrobert on April 24, 2005)
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1433
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:17 pm: |
|
Sir Robert writes:
"I think we can rule Barrett out as author based on the errors and mistruths in his assorted confessions."
And yet the diary itself is full of "errors and mistruths."
Perhaps this is in fact a developed personal style.
I have long argued that the evidence to indict Mike Barrett as the author of this book has not yet been produced.
It has not.
On the other hand, neither has the material evidence that would allow us to "rule him out."
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:20 am: |
|
John,
your post above made me laugh out loud!
But guys seriously now, the ink,
what is the big ink problem?
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:08 am: |
|
Sorry sorry sorry
Heres an interesting excercise. Go to the copy of the AFI Report and check the pictures of the chromatograms for the samples and blank and standard.
Now go to Google and do an image search for "GC Chromatogram" and see the pictures.
Now (and I not insinuating or implying so do not say that I am or have) compare the Google chromatograms with the AFI chormatograms.
An optimal chromatogram has a good flat baseline, peaks separated by more than 2 or 3 times their "Full Width at Half Maximum, symmetrical peaks and no "tailing".
It would have been very nice if the AFI analysis had used a different flow rate (or speeded up the chart recorder) on the mobile phase. This would have "stretched out" the chromatogram and hopefully have fully resolved that nasty multiplet (not a handy thing at all) that lies near the chloroacetamide peak of contention. PLus it would have allowed for full quantitation (which is helped by a full flat baseline which is not present). Interesting enough the blank acetone seems to register something in that area as well. I imagine the really big peak at the start of the chromatogram is the initial solvent "coming off" the column and its a pity that the rest of the information is superimposed on the tail of that peak.
It would have been very nice had AFI written down the following information so the analysis could have been repeated. And I suggest that if anyopne does succeed in getting more analysis done, they specify getting the following information as part of the deal: Column type, diameter, filling,; temperature of column and injection chamber; details of temperature cycle used; detector used; mobile gas phase used; chart speed and sensitivity; injection volume; cloumn conditioning, instrument manufacturer.
What could be an idea is to print off the report, head down to your local university, into the chemistry faculty, up to the organic chemistry department, find the GC analyst and ask them what they think of those chromatograms and would they be confident of identifying chloroacetamide based on them. Dont tell them they are from the diary or they may run away in a flurry of white coats. Dont ask them if chloroacetamide was present, just would they be confident in identifying it from th echromatograms to hand.
Its a good example that AFI probably did exactly what they were asked to do - analyse for chloroacetamide. If a chemist had detailed what he/she wanted from the analysis he may have been able to specifiy exactly what was wanted and the results might have been clearer (but a bit dearer).
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 2:54 am: |
|
Hello Caroline Anne Morris
I am not fully sure how a GC analysis indcates nitrogen. A common mobile phase gas in GC is nitrogen! Possibly they meant nitrogen containing compounds. But I dont see how a normal GC confirms those either unless its attached to an MS and I have seen no mention of that in anything I have read.
You are right about the fact that a standard could have been run after the sample. BUt the following should also be considered. Theoretically, a compound could have an RT of X seconds (this will of course vary for every instrument, every lab, every run etc. etc.). Practically it will have an RT of a range of seconds resulting in a peak on a chart that spreads over a certain number of seconds. The narrower the peak obviously the better. On a poor column, it will be broader. Any other compound with a different RT but that is not different by a factor determined by the resolution of the analysis as run can be identified as compound X.
But I will say this. If I am at my GC and am asked to analyse a sample for an unknown compound X. I have to make sure that my GC can effect separation of the compound. That the temperature of the column, the flow of the gas, the detector I am using will separate the compound in a resaonable length of time and produce a nice peak. I could run the sample first and hope that separation occurs.But if nothing appears on the chart I will have to change conditions and run again and keep running until eventually a peak appears. Which may not be the compound I am after. But to be sure that separation in the sample occurs, I could just check with a standard solution first if you see my point. Running the sample first could be a major headache. It would be really hoping that the analysis would work first time. Maybe AFI analyse chlorac. all the time in which case their column and setup would be optimised for the compound already. But then of course the entire instrument has been exposed to the compound already. Contamination is not normally an issue as there are ways it is dealt with. Blanks and column conditioning and such. And many labs just analyse one or two compounds per GC instrument. Eliminating problems.
IF you really want to find out about how to analyse these compound, ring the RSC and they should be able to point you to a good method. But I think you will find that it involves a lot more than just GC.
GC in its standard form is not, I repeat, NOT, a good technique for identifying unknowns and should not be used in isolation as a confirmation of presence or abscence of a compound. And especially not on one analysis. And Leeds demonstrated confidence in themselves and their abilities by owning up to potential contamination. Its not even "owning up", its just mentioning what every chemist knows is the situation.
Secondly, I would imagine chloroacetamide is either 1)a preservative or 2)a stabiliser. In which case I would imagine that you may also find it is employed in paper processing, leather or textile industries, maybe glue manufacturing. Should it have been used in any of tehse industries prior to whenever then it could be contamination of the ink samples by the presence of the compound in other bits of the diary. Binding glues maybe, glue to hold photos in, Ohhhh.....I dont know.
Hello John: Contamination is not a spectre (or specter). Its a normal fact of life for every chemist on the planet. And normally I do try and follow your discussion but sometimes your logic and good points are lost in all the other stuff (I dont know how to describe it) you write.
And fair enough: while he may be impressed with the procedures, that doesnt imply decent results. I spend most of my day looking a "standard" (ie. approved by Governments as standard methods) procedures and trying to figure out where the wrong answer came from for particular implementations of these procedures. You really should read up on your QA/QC and validation of chemical methods! I am surprised to find you lacking!
Of all the aspects of this diary, the one that should be quoted least as evidence is the technical analysis conducted so far.
Mr Poster
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:20 am: |
|
Hello again.
Sorry for posting twice.
If the ink was ever to be analysed again it is very important that normal analysis procedure is followed and in this case that should include:
1)replicate samples of the ink
2)samples of modern inks, ball point pens etc (in replicates).
3)genuinely old ink samples (in replicates)
4) blanks (ie pieces of the paper to which all of the above have been applied)
5) spikes (old and new samples with chloroacetamide added.
6) a "bulked" sample from the diary. This would raise the analytical signal to a point where "detection limit" signals of suspect compounds could not be argued ad infinitum.
7) relicate samples of an ink that was purchased with th eintention of it being used to fake an old ink (badly explained)
And these should all be double blind (ie. unknown to the analyst, unknown to the customer). Sacrifice a page of the diary to a pharamcetical contractor and get them to construct the set.
When the above set has been compiled, a range of labs should be asked to analyse them all and identify the old samples if they can. If the results tally with the index of the samples or dont, theres your answer. At least theres enough material to really say something.
That at least would constitute a scientific assessment in methodology.
Mr Poster
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster writes: "Regarding paper trails of cheques. I doubt a working class family in '90's Britain would be very fastidious about holding on to such things."
Actually, it wasn't so much a matter of "holding on to to such things", Mr. Poster, it was a matter of tearing out the cheque stubs. The blank Victorian Diary was ordered by Barrett in March 1992, roughly a month before he showed up in London with what is widely accepted as a hoax. Before. Anne Graham did still have the stubs three years later in 1995. Unfortunately, as I understand it, she tore out the other cheque stubs in the sequence, and only produced the one asked for. So ten years later, you're probably right in suggesting it's too late.
It stikes me as remarkable that the argument now seems to be running that the diary's ink was 'accidently' contaminated by the very chemical found in the manuscript ink sold by the shop Barrett pointed out. Its easy to raise doubts about anything; in fact this very conversation is quite similar to one on the old boards 5 or 6 years ago. One chemist posted here some time back suggested a battery of comprehensive tests, and then announced the price tag at an estimated $500,000 US. Of course, maybe the answer is really rather simple? The gentleman who brought forth the diary, made money off the diary, purchased a blank Victorian diary, lied repeatedly, made unconvincing research notes, produced the Sphere guide, hid his writing ambitions, and later confessed, actually did know where the ink was bought, and Dr. Simpson's tests actually showed what was present? No, no. That's too far fetched. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
"Remarkable" indeed. Apparently just another one of the many amazing and stunning and necessarily simultaneous coincidences that are required to explain why the diary is not a modern hoax, despite all the textual evidence pointing in the other direction.
Anyway, well said,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Mr Poster describes a series of necessary operations and a thorough scientific process for testing the ink and then writes:
"That at least would constitute a scientific assessment in methodology."
Excellent.
I hope it happens soon.
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 9:27 pm: |
|
" The gentleman who brought forth the diary, made money off the diary, purchased a blank Victorian diary, lied repeatedly, made unconvincing research notes, produced the Sphere guide, hid his writing ambitions, and later confessed, actually did know where the ink was bought, and Dr. Simpson's tests actually showed what was present? No, no. That's too far fetched."
R.J. - your comment has jogged my memory with respect to Barrett’s research notes. They’re referenced in one of the Harrison or Feldman books and I think there’s some discussion on the Casebook somewhere, which is eluding my searching, and they name the books he used for "research" when trying to "figure out" who the Diarist was. I think the notes may mention Fido's book, so maybe it can be shown that Barrett was familiar with it. But I've lost track as to whether the modern hoax theorists have abandoned Fido as a possible source. It appears that Rumbelow is the flavor of the day.
Which doesn’t alter the fact that Barrett has never properly explained how he forged the diary.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 9:58 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
What, precisely, do you think it is logically fair to conclude from "the fact that Barrett has never properly explained how he forged the diary."
Just curious,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 882
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 3:48 am: |
|
Sir Robert
But I've lost track as to whether the modern hoax theorists have abandoned Fido as a possible source. It appears that Rumbelow is the flavor of the day.
Surely you're not just saying that in reaction to my mistaken impression on another thread that the inventory had been published verbatim (rather than summarised) by Rumbelow (prefaced by "if I remember correctly")?
Have a look here if you want to see a closely argued analysis of what books the diarist may have used:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 883
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
Mr Poster
Heres an interesting excercise. Go to the copy of the AFI Report and check the pictures of the chromatograms for the samples and blank and standard.
I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the report, and I would guess most people reading this don't either.
Have any of the chromatograms been reproduced in published books?
Or is there any chance that one or more could be reproduced on the Casebook?
Otherwise very few people will be able to do what you recommend.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
The AFI report can be found among the other reports kindly posted in the Appendix to Melvin Harris's "Fact File," here:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/factfile.html
Don't read the follow-up letter that AFI was forced to send to one of the diary proponents, if you don't want to learn about some of the ugliness that was going on even back then.
Melvin also posted several other important documents in the same Appendix and the File itself is worth reading.
All the best,
--John
PS: Mr. Poster has suggested that these reports are insufficient and that we should not yet base any conclusions on the science as it now stands and that there are ways to conduct proper, responsible, thorough tests. He has even detailed the procedures for us. I wonder what will happen next?
(Message edited by omlor on April 26, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
The maroon diary investigation was covered in Ripper Diary, but for all those who still don’t know the basic details, here they are again:
Mike Barrett places an order by phone, on or around March 9 1992, for a Victorian diary, giving his real name and address.
On March 9 1992, he phones Doreen Montgomery, using a false name, and claims to have in his possession a written confession by the ripper. (I don’t know if she asks him for a description of the document, but it would be the natural thing to do.)
On March 26 1992, the little maroon diary, dated 1891, is dispatched to Mike at his home address.
On April 13 1992, Mike brings the scrapbook to London.
On October 2 1992, Dr Nick Eastaugh produces his report, after examining the scrapbook and analysing the ink, and finding nothing inconsistent with the claimed date of 1888/9.
Eastaugh declared that once a document had been knocking around for 3-5 years, it was difficult, if not impossible, to determine how recently the ink had been applied to the paper before that time, implying that if the diary had been written within 3-5 years of his examination (ie after mid-1987 at the earliest, but at any time after mid-1989) he would have been able to say so.
This suggests that if Mike purchased the scrapbook for the purpose of creating the diary, he is likely to have done so before mid-1989. So I doubt that Anne’s bank statements from the early 1990s could reveal anything incriminating. And if they did show, at any time, a transaction representing the purchase of the scrapbook, I very much doubt that Anne would co-operate in tracking it down, as she did for the maroon diary. But the potential paper trail was not in any case what I meant by a ‘fatal move’ on Mike's part.
If Mike ordered the maroon diary before his initial call to Doreen, hoping to obtain a more suitable book for his hoax, why wouldn’t he have waited for this to arrive and decided whether it was any good before phoning anyone about the diary? By ‘fatal move’, I meant that if he had gone ahead and had the text transferred into this new book - which he didn’t receive until nearly three weeks had passed since his initial call to Doreen - and then handed it over on April 13, to be examined well within the tell-tale 3-5 year period, his goose would almost certainly have been cooked long before it could have laid its first golden egg.
If Mike ordered the maroon diary after his initial call to Doreen, for the same reason, the same problems would apply. And neither theory works if he had already described the physical scrapbook to her before the maroon diary arrived. The other small problem is that if Mike’s verified order for the Victorian diary was solely motivated by a desire to get hold of a more convincing vehicle for the hoaxer’s 63-page composition than the Victorian guard book, previously purchased and mutilated for the purpose, the useless, tiny 1891 article that finally plopped through his letter-box suggests Mike completely forgot to specify what he needed, in order to make this one even viable, let alone more convincing. Either that, or he did specify a diary of a certain size, dated before 1890, with x number of blank pages - although there is no evidence that he did - but didn’t think to send the thing back and save Anne forking out good money for it.
You are not suggesting the maroon diary came first and the scrapbook could have been obtained later - surely?
With regard to Mike’s memory, doesn’t it seem odd to you that if he does indeed suffer from ‘permanent memory loss with a tendency to invent what he doesn't remember’, he could still recall many details of the various claims he has made over the years, when we interviewed him in 2002 (even repeating them in some instances, eight years apart, such as finding the Sphere book in Mount Pleasant in 1994), yet he has never been able to recall a single verifiable detail relating to the conception, research, composition and penmanship of the diary, or when this was all taking place and who else was involved?
Can memory loss really be as selective as this? Did Mike somehow manage to block out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as it related to the actual creating process, so that by June 1994 he could not remember a single detail that could have proved his involvement?
If not, we are back to Mike's acting talent; behaving at various times (including at the April 1999 C&D meeting - and yes, Sir Robert, I was there, it was my baptism by fire) as if he were desperate to prove the diary a recent forgery, but never really intending to do so.
It strikes me as remarkable that the argument now seems to be running that the diary's ink was 'accidently' contaminated by the very chemical found in the manuscript ink sold by the shop Barrett pointed out.
I am simply asking Mr Poster if this was a possibility, considering this ‘very chemical’ was there in the lab, for the sole purpose of ascertaining if this ‘very chemical’ was also present in the diary ink. I thought that much was crystal clear from the recent posts.
Yes, what you said does sound a wee bit far fetched to me, considering it depends on:
a) believing a claim by Mike
b) Diamine being bought and used by a hoaxer
c) the chief research chemist at Diamine being willing to state (a full year after AFI reported the presence of chloroacetamide) that the diary ink is not Diamine - and being totally wrong.
Hi Chris,
The AFI report was commissioned by Melvin Harris, and I don't know who else may have copies.
Martin Fido has said in the past that, having read the diary, he didn't think the author used his ripper book as a source.
Bernard Ryan obviously doesn't think his book was used for the Maybrick material, because he thinks Feldy has proved that Sir Jim was the ripper!
And Alec Voller is certain that his own ink wasn't used.
Is there a pattern here, I wonder?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 26, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
Caroline Morris writes:
"Hi Chris,
The AFI report was commissioned by Melvin Harris, and I don't know who else may have copies."
Uh, I hope she was typing this summary of old issues above while I was posting the location of the reports. Otherwise, she's obviously not reading very carefully.
Incidentally, when was the last time anyone asked Martin Fido about his book being used in the composition of the diary? And, just out of curiosity, how would he know that it wasn't used anyway? How would any author? I'd like to see the explanation. Perhaps Caroline will post it, since she has cited Martin's opinion.
Oh, wait. I forgot where I am and who I'm talking about.
And she actually writes these words:
"Yes, what you said does sound a wee bit far fetched to me, considering it depends on:
a) believing a claim by Mike"
What was it Al Michaels said when the American hockey team was about to beat the Russians?
If only Caroline listened to herself when it comes to some of Mike's other fantastic and completely unsubstantiated tales.
Ah, well,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:56 am: |
|
John
The AFI report can be found among the other reports kindly posted in the Appendix to Melvin Harris's "Fact File," here:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/factfile.html
Thanks for posting the URL.
"Mr Poster"
After looking at the chromatographs and your posts, I'm not sure what your point is.
You seem to be raising the fact that there isn't a flat baseline as a difficulty, but the peaks identified as chloroacetamide seem perfectly clear. Are you saying there aren't clear peaks there?
You say the blank acetone seems to register something in that area [the neighbourhood of the peak] as well. What are you getting at? I can see something like a tiny blip there, but are you suggesting this could be confused with the clear peaks observed in the presence of chloroacetamide/ink?
Finally, you recommend that we visit our "local universities" and question the chemists there, but you don't tell us what your own answer to the question would be:
would you be confident of identifying chloroacetamide based on them?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
"Surely you're not just saying that in reaction to my mistaken impression on another thread that the inventory had been published verbatim (rather than summarised) by Rumbelow (prefaced by "if I remember correctly")? "
No, Chris - it was in response to Jenni's post yesterday where she said:
"Let me put this simply to you, for want of a better expression I am a modern hoax theorist, Martin Fidos 1987 version is not where modern hoax theorsit claim Mike got the qoute, that is the first thing,"
So that leaves the modern hoax school of thought with Rumbelow - where the phrase is quite different than the Diarist's take on it - or someone doing primary research on recently made public files.
I have to admit that the thought of Barrett doing primary research gives me the giggles.
(Message edited by sirrobert on April 26, 2005)
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
i don't know about anyone else but theres only a certain amount of times im willing to repeat the same thing.
but it is a long amount of times.
man i could just sit here all day repeating the same thing.
my point is this you assume modern hoax theorists think mike forged the diary.
that is a false assumption.
Jenni
ps id go over the rest of the post but it clearly did not make sense the first time and i only want to repeat things i already said!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
"my point is this you assume modern hoax theorists think mike forged the diary. "
OK - so Barrett didn't do it, and the Diarist didn't crib from Fido. Is that a fair summary of what you've posted between yesterday and today?
And when you say "forged", I assume you are referring to authorship. Or are you just saying Mike didn't physically write the Diary?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
