|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:24 am: | 
|
sorry i used the word forged! i try not to sometimes it just happens.
just add the word necessarily and thats a fair summary.
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
and anyway,
where do you think the diarist got it from?
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 885
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Oh. It hadn't occurred to me that you would take a post by Jenni that didn't even mention Rumbelow (but instead suggested that the diarist went to the original record) and deduce from that that:
It appears that Rumbelow is the flavor of the day.
Surely there's a bit of leg-pulling going on here, isn't there?
I suspect any attempt at serious discussion here is doomed, but let's be optimistic, and post those questions again:
(1) Do you know any evidence at all that indicates the diary was written before the 1980s?
(2) Do you really think that because the capital letters and the comma aren't reproduced in the diary, then the "tin match box empty" in the diary came from somewhere other than the Eddowes inventory?
Chris Phillips
PS Ever heard of Jeremy Paxman?
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 26, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
"where do you think the diarist got it from?"
I just don't know. Any other sort of phrase and I’d agree with your point of view, but it's not unheard of for someone to list an item and follow it with a note of the distinctive characteristics, which is, after all, precisely what the policeman did who drew up the list of Eddowes’ possessions.
Why is it so unlikely that the Diarist, whoever it was and whenever he/she was writing, shouldn’t have done exactly the same thing, especially if for him the emptiness of the matchbox was important? The diarist was making a list of things he wanted to mention in a rhyme, so he noted the item and then it's significance. When we look at the rhyme itself we find that the emptiness was important to the Diarist (or he wanted it to appear so) because he wrote ‘dammit the matchbox was empty’. If the emptiness of the matchbox hadn’t been emphasised in the rhyme then I’d agree that ‘tin match box, empty’ was almost certainly lifted from the list of Eddowes' possessions, but the fact that the diarist does emphasise the emptiness allows similarity of his earlier reference to the inventory to be coincidental. I’m not saying it is or is even probable, just that it’s possible. The fact that the exact phrase used by the Diarist doesn't appear in Fido, Rumbelow, nor Evans adds to my skepticism.
I also don't buy into the notion that no other copies of the police report existed. I just don't believe that the police attached their one and only copy of Eddowes' possessions to the coroner's report.
The bottom line for me is that I don't find Crashaw or the tin box a fatal blow.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Hi,
no i don't think crashaw is a fatal blow either.
so how do you think that the diarist knew that the tin match box empty, existed and was empty?
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Neale Carter
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 63
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Hello all,
By way of background to the subject of analysing inks on contentious documents, an excellent documentary has just aired here (in Australia) on the Vinland Map, via Channel4. For those unfamiliar with this, it is a map supposedly produced by the Vikings indicating their familiarity with North America pre-Columbus. It was purchased by Yale University and apparently authenticated in the 1950s. It has since been the subject of much debate and the programme focusses on dating the ink used in the map and covers the very latest laser techniques.
The conclusion of the programme was that the map is a modern fake produced by the "finder" of the document in the 1930s. No doubt the conjecture will continue and there are interesting parallels for this debate.
Regards
Neale |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
In other words, the only other explanation for how the line from the inventory list got in the diary is...
Maybe there was something we just don't know about yet.
Despite the fact that there is a simple and obvious and common sense explanation that is supported by all the other textual evidence and is without problems -- a hoaxer simply saw the list printed in bold face in a Ripper book published in 1987 and used it in composing the diary.
Those are the two choices. Someone saw the list in a source readily available after 1987 (a book on the very topic they were writing about) and used it in their composition (a simple and obvious explanation supported by the other textual evidence). Or maybe there was something we just don't know anything about.
What sort of choice is this?
What sort of argument is this?
And the situation is exactly the same when it comes to explaining the Poste House, how Mike identified the Crashaw quote for everyone using the only other book in history that has the line excerpted and cited like it is in the diary, why there are modern letter formations, why there is still no verifiable provenance, and why the people who brought the book forward lied from the minute they did so. In each and every case, there are two possibilities. One -- that the book is a modern hoax -- explains each and every one of these problems simply, obviously, directly, using basic common sense. The other -- that the book is an old hoax -- is reduced to not having an evidenced explanation of any material sort and merely saying "maybe there was something we just don't know about yet."
When gasping desire replaces logic and vague and unevidenced hopes replace simple explanations using available documents, rational discussion becomes futile.
And that's where we are now.
In Diary World, of course,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
No John,
come on be fair,
listen to what the guy said,
Why is it so unlikely that the Diarist, whoever it was and whenever he/she was writing, shouldn’t have done exactly the same thing, especially if for him the emptiness of the matchbox was important? The diarist was making a list of things he wanted to mention in a rhyme, so he noted the item and then it's significance. When we look at the rhyme itself we find that the emptiness was important to the Diarist (or he wanted it to appear so) because he wrote ‘dammit the matchbox was empty’. If the emptiness of the matchbox hadn’t been emphasised in the rhyme then I’d agree that ‘tin match box, empty’ was almost certainly lifted from the list of Eddowes' possessions, but the fact that the diarist does emphasise the emptiness allows similarity of his earlier reference to the inventory to be coincidental. I’m not saying it is or is even probable, just that it’s possible. The fact that the exact phrase used by the Diarist doesn't appear in Fido, Rumbelow, nor Evans adds to my skepticism.
the diarist knew about the empty tin match box.
and he didnt know from the inventory or modern books.
Just think its important we understand how he did know in this case.
or maybe I'm reading way too much into it.
But i'm sure he'll say if so.
Its raining here,
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1463
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Oh.
You are reading Sir Robert as saying that the diarist knew about the match box but did not see either the police report OR a modern source?
Wow.
I can't wait to hear the logical, evidence based explanation for how our hoaxer knew that one.
I thought Sir Robert was saying he didn't know how the line from the list got there but maybe there was some other copy floating around in olden times that we just don't know about. Just like everything else in the diary that an old hoax can't explain, yet again he was reduced to mere hope, you know, and vague speculation in place of a simple and obvious scenario that makes perfect sense.
Why base an explanation on a source you know existed and was available when you can invent an explanation based on one you don't?
I love thinking like that,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 886
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Jenni:
"where do you think the diarist got it from?"
Sir Robert:
I just don't know
This is what I just don't understand.
As you don't have any alternative suggestion to make, why are you so resistant to the obvious explanation - that he got it from the published transcript of the inventory?
Do you really find it so unbelievable that someone as slipshod as the diarist should omit a comma, or change upper case initials to lower case, or restore the space in "MatchBox" that was erroneously omitted by Fido?
What reason do you have for thinking the diary is an old hoax, that forces you into this speculation about an unknown second copy of the inventory, for whose existence there is absolutely no evidence, which you suppose that the semi-literate diarist discovered by some unimaginable means, but which has never been found by any other researcher?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
sorry,
he did know about it from the inventory,
there was me getting carried away, with facts!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Hey all,
Let me make one other interesting point.
Perhaps it's nothing, but...
The diarist lists the cigarette case and the whore's knife in the same little section where they mention the tin match box empty. They also mention the sugar and the tea on the next page.
Now, all those items appear on the list.
In fact, those items are quite close to one another.
In fact, the KNIFE, the CASE, and the MATCH BOX, are, get this...
Consecutive entries on the list.
And they appear grouped together in the diary.
If you'd like to see exactly how the three entries looked handwritten in the original list send me e-mail (I can't get the file to upload). Martin had the upper case right in Match Box, but the space is missing in his book (probably a typo). Of course the diarist at that point is not using upper case or punctuation in their list.
However, surely it is worth noticing that the diarist also mentions the case and the knife in the very same little passage where they mention the match box. So there is a very clear textual indication that they were referring to the list.
If they weren't referring to the list, why would these three particular items be grouped together in the diary AND grouped together in the list?
There's no other reason.
Clearly, whoever wrote these words saw the same three items grouped together on the list. Just look at the file after I send it to you.
And here's another fun and interesting little observation.
These three items and the sugar and tea (which the diarist mentions as well on the very next page) are all listed in the inventory. But they have something else in common.
At least in my edition of Martin Fido's book they do.
They all appear at the top of page 70 together. The bold-faced list in my edition is split, with most of it on page 69 and the last bit (including these specific items) at the top of page 70.
Is that true for everyone's copy (or is this just my edition)?
Anyway, I think there can be no question that the list is the source here, since the diarist mentions the case AND the knife AND the match box in the very same little list of lines and they are consecutive items on the original list.
Hope that helps some,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 26, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 528
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
John,
For what it's worth, my edition of Fido also has the inventory (in bold face) on pp. 69-70. And yes, the grouping of the items is very suggestive.
One other point about this often pointless discussion I'd like to make is to ask why anyone would think the writer of the diary was operating as if it were an academic dissertation? [And no, Jenni, that wasn't meant as a dig, but. . . .]
That is, if you were actually hoaxing a diary, even if you aren't attempting to forge the handwriting of the person confessing, you would want to make it seem as if it all flows nicely. You get into a nice rhythm and the last thing in the world you will want to do is stop to correctly transcribe particular lines. That sort herky-jerky handwriting would raise an immediate red flag for any decent documents examiner. So instead, you've got some notes handy and just write away and as a result, well maybe a comma is missed or a plural ending omitted. But, as I said, this was not an academic exercise and footnotes were not required.
Of course, the same would hold true if the diary were genuine. That is possible, but life is too short (and too much fun) to seriously entertain that notion.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Thanks Don.
Perhaps we should mention that you have to turn the page to get to page 70 and that the last bit of the list, with these same particular items on it, is separated and printed in bold face at the top.
But more importantly, if you look at the lines in the handwritten version of the diary where the match box, the knife, and the case are listed, you'll see they are scrawled in small letters, two of them are crossed out, and there is no punctuation.
But what you also notice is that the three items the diarist lists together are the case, the knife, and the match box. The very same three items the police inventory lists consecutively.
Clearly the diarist saw the list.
At least we know that much from the text.
--John
PS: A consequence of this is that the diary cannot be genuine unless Maybrick himself somehow saw the police list after killing Eddowes and then used it in his own diary. Anyone want to argue that this happened?
PS: I still have that image of the items as they are handwritten on the inventory as well. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Hello Chris Phillips
I will try to explain. Take a look at the AFI trace. Unresolved peaks, sitting on a difficult baseline, even the peak of interest is a multiplet. Now look at other chromatograms. Clear defined narrow peaks, no multiplets, flat baselines under peaks of interest. These are what chromatographers aim for. Those peaks are information coded as areas, widths and locations. The better defined the peaks, the better the quality of information. Now go back to the AFI traces. Do you think that is good quality information realtive to typical chromatograms? The fact that they are typical can be checked in any text book.
If the peaks are like a radio signal, the isolated peaks on flat baselines represent clear signals on a static free background. Where the information is easy to extract or "listen to". Go back to the AFI trace. Do you think the information here is as clearly transmitted as in the typical ones you should have seen? Is there more or less "noise"? How many interfering channels are imposing on the "wavelength" (peak) you want to listen to?
The multiplet at the signal of interest. If these were radio channels you would be listening to a mixture of two channels with high static background, only one of which you want to hear. If the signal you want to hear is weak to start with, does the presence of a second signal on the same bandwidth help or hinder you in hearing the one you want to listen to?
The determination of concentration is based on area. Does the shoulder on the right of the peak of interest help or hinder you determining the area? What does the shoulder on the right "do" in the part under the signal peak?
Look at the typical chromatograms. very few of them contain multiplets near the peaks of interest. Because that represents degradation of information.
Get a textbook. Braithwaite and Smiths "Chromatographic methods". for egs. The defined aim of chromatography is to "separate components". Shoulders, multiplets, doublets are not the aim. I think its fair to say, and Im quite confident that any chemist with chromatography experience would agree with me on this, is that the AFI chromatograms could possibly have been better. And Im sure they did their best with the resources that they were given. Now remember that the identification was made using a technique that, in no other circumstance I have heard of, is used alone to identify compunds with ceratinty.
NOw, I can understand that you are not familiar with GC or chemistry maybe. In the same way I am not with iambic pentameters or other things English. But trust me, a "blip" as you say under the peak of interest is not really acceptable especially under the circumstances I outline above.
Would I be confident in identifying the chloroacetamide? If I knew that it was going to be the subject of the attention this analysis got (and, in their defence, I doubt very much that AFI was aware of what was going to happen)I would say no.
I think AFI probably did the job that was appropriate for the money they were paid. I would think however if they had knew the storm that could focus on their results, the result may have been very different.
In return: would you be happy to be convicted of a crime on the basis of it, in light of the points I have raised ? Or would you feel that your defence barrister should have raised those points?
And having been an expert witness once or twice, the question the barrister would ask, in elevated tones:
Question: Can the witness say with 100% ceratinty that the signal in the blank is not chloroacetamide? Yes or No please.
Answer: Im not sure....yes?
Question: What do you base your identification of chloroacetamide upon in the standard ?
Answer: its retention time. X seconds.
Question: so a signal with the same retention time is chloroacetamide ? Yes or no?
Answer: Yes
Question: Do you agree there is a sinal in theblank with the same retention time, X seconds? yes or No?
Answer: its a blip.....?
Question: you admit there is a deviation from the baseline?
Answer: yes?
Question: You agree that a deviation from baseline is a signal? Yes or no?
Answer: yes.
Question: So there is a signal in the blank at the same retention time upon which you identified chloroacetamide and you agree that retention time is what you base your identification of chloroacetamide upon? Yes or no?
Answer: Yes.
Question: to be clear m'lud, the witness admits that the blank exhibits a signal indicative of chloroacetamide.
"Blips" come on radar screens. On chromatograms they are a signal. And in a contentious case, its a real problem.
But look, in all fairness, dont take my word for it. Find a chemist or chromatographer. Ask him, in a contentious case like this one, would he be happy stating with absolute certainty that the chloroacetamaide was only coming fraom the sample?
Mr Poster
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Hello
I can see I am getting or going to get some flak over my queries about current technical evidence and I appreciate that many of you dont have access to a chemist. So I suggest you all head over to:
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/gcms.html
This is a website for us poor scientists who are called in to defend our results (which happens).They publish guidelines and advice on how to defend results or how to attack back when counter results are presented in court testimony. I will quote some of their reccomendations regarding GC analysis (the one in question) and then you can see whether or not the current analysis results could withstand even a minor attack by a qualified chemist (such as me for example!). Or from a well briefed barrister. There is no point talking about semantics or "blips" or "I dont think its wide". Such things do not feature in the chemistry lexicon.
Here we go (its interesting stuff really!):
"GC analysis is a common confirmation test. Among its uses are drug testing and environmental contaminant identification. GC analysis separates all of the components in a sample and provides a representative spectral output. The technician injects the sample into the injection port of the GC device. The GC instrument vaporizes the sample and then separates and analyzes the various components. Each component ideally produces a specific spectral peak that may be recorded on a paper chart or electronically. The time elapsed between injection and elution is called the "retention time." The retention time can help to differentiate between some compounds. The size of the peaks is proportional to the quantity of the corresponding substances in the specimen analyzed. The peak is measured from the baseline to the tip of the peak."
"The amount of time that a compound is retained in the GC column is known as the retention time. The technician should measure retention time from the sample injection until the compound elutes from the column. The retention time can aid in differentiating between some compounds. However, retention time is not a reliable factor to determine the identity of a compound. If two samples do not have equal retention times, those samples are not the same substance. However, identical retention times for two samples only indicate a possibility that the samples are the same substance. Potentially thousands of chemicals may have the same retention time, peak shape, and detector response."
"Bluntly, GC is "one of the quickest ways of getting the wrong answer in qualitative analysis."
"Before analyzing a sample, the technician should tune and calibrate the instrument. A technician can process a spiked sample (containing a known concentration of a substance) to check calibration and tuning. If the instrument does not detect the substance or shows a greater or lesser concentration than the known concentration, the technician must recalibrate the instrument. Also, the technician can use a blank sample (containing no detectable compounds) to test the GC/MS instrument's data reporting accuracy. If the device indicates the presence of a substance in the blank sample, the device may contain residue from prior analysis. If this occurs, the technician must retune and recalibrate the GC/MS instrument."
Please note that the blank should not indicate ANY substances, yet the chromatogram A clearly has at least one.
"Less than ideal spectral peaks may indicate less than ideal analytical procedures or equipment. The technician can readily observe whether the output exhibits unsatisfactory results. Ideally, the spectral peaks should be symmetrical, narrow, separate (not overlapping), and made with smooth lines. GC evidence may be suspect if the peaks are broad, overlapping, or unevenly formed. If a poorly shaped peak contains a steep front and a long, drawn-out tail, this may indicate traces of water in the specimen."
"The GC technician should inject the specimen into the septum rapidly and smoothly to attain good separation of the components in a specimen. If the technician injects the specimen too slowly, the peak may be broad or overlap. A twin peak may result from the technician hesitating during the injection. A smoothly performed injection, without abrupt changes, should result in a smoothly formed peak. A twin peak may also indicate that the technician injected two specimens consecutively. "
"Ideally, all components of a specimen elute completely from the GC column. If any substance remains inside the column, the substance may elute during subsequent analyses with other specimens. This may result in an unexpected peak in the output. The peak produced should be broad."
"The GC device is generally a reliable analytical instrument. The GC instrument is effective in separating compounds into their various components. However, the GC instrument can not be used for reliable identification of specific substances. The MS instrument provides specific results but produces uncertain qualitative results. When an analyst uses the GC instrument to separate compounds before analysis with an MS instrument, a complementary relationship exists. The technician has access to both the retention times and mass spectral data. Many scientists consider GC/MS analysis as a tool for conclusive proof of identity.
"GC/MS analysis, where the effluent to the GC instrument is the feed to the MS instrument, is in wide use for confirmation testing of substances. Drug testing, manufacturing quality control, and environmental testing are some typical uses. "
Now Im a patient man, but if you can read the the paragraph above that begins with "Less than ideal....." and the rest of this post,the bit about what a blank should be, then read that website, then look at the technical evidence Melvin H. presented, then look at what typical chromatograms look like, then consider the points I have made in other posts and still think that Melvin H.'s techncial evidence is on firm legs.....then I dont know.
I imagine the only reason someone has not questioned the technical results to date is because not many chemists drop by. Or maybe they were stunned into silence by the faith put in the ones we have.
How the mantra of "chloroacetamide was present" can still even exist is beyond me. Thank god for science...no semantics, no wordplay, consensual agreement on what is and what isnt acceptable, parameters things can be judged against.
In truth, I admire John V.O., its a better man than me can fuction in a career where things arent so clearcut.
But good reliable results can be obtained, we just have to think about the points made in the above.
Mr Poster} |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Hello Chris
Its attached to Melvin H.'s dissertation.
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 2:27 am: |
|
Hello
Heres an excercise we can all do at home.
Print out the page of the AFI report with the chromatograms from Melivin H.'s dissertation.If you need a scissors, ask a grown up to help ( I learned something from the purple dinosaur if not the dragon).If they are big enough, get them into an image program and print them as big as you need.
On the second chromatogram (marked B), find the beginning of the chart trace on the left.
It goes down a little then rises sharply. The line fades a little but the ascension point is
quite clear. The reason it fades out is becuase as the pen moves on the chart, the intensity of the line is a bit weaker as the pen moves fast at this point when the solvent comes off teh column. At the ascension point (ie. the exact point where that line begins to rise), draw a vertical pencil line paralell to the chart line. Now go to the peak marked chloroacetamide peak.
From the very top of that peak draw a vertical line up and down through the apex of the peak paralell to the first line if possible.
Now measure the distance on your page from the first line you drew to the second (along a
horizontal line at 90 degrees to both of them).What you have just measured is a representation of the "retention distance" (from the start of the solvent front to the apex of the peak of interest.
In reality this would be divided by the chart speed in mm/sec or the volume of mobile phase to give the RT or RV.
Now on chromatogram A, find the start of the trace. Its quite flat for a bit then shoots up the page.
Draw a vertical line as for chromatogram B. At right angles to that line, draw a line exactly the same length as the line representing the retention distance in chromatogram B. At right angles to that draw a line from its end straight up and down. Where that line intersects the chart trace is where the chloroacetamide peak should be.
In chromatogram A, at that point you will see a small doublet peak. The first component is slightly hidden by the chart line but not enough to obscure it . The blank chromatogram can therefore be seen to possess a peak at the exact location at which chloroacetamide should yield a peak. It can be assumed that this signal in the blank (which may not be chloroacetamide but could be a compound with a similar RT) will be superimposed on subsequent chromatograms. In an ideal world the blank trace is subtracted from the sample but this needs a computerised trace and techniques called area normalisation which I dont think have been applied and I dont have time to go into.
Now what you have done so far is analyse a chromatogram in the way generations of students have done it. And this is not an "F.M. in blood spatters" situation. "PrntScr" the page, paste it into any image software , magnify the point on the trace in chromatogram A (the blank) and you will clearly see the trace line rise at the same point you would expect chloroacetamide based on the standard run in chromatogram B. And now, just to pile it on a little. The blank has a doublet at the same region as chloroacetamide. According to the standard chromatogram B, only the first component of the doublet is chloroacetamide. Yet the second component (which came from the blank) is visible to some extent in all the chromatograms indicating that the blank signal is being superimposed on all the chromatograms. That means the second component of the doublet will be visible in all chromatograms and the first, which just happens to coincide with the point on the trace where chloroacetamide occurs, will also be superimposed. In the final "spiked" chromatogram, the second component is now visible as a shoulder on the chloroacetamide peak as the concentartion of that component is much greater. And, even not being a betting man, I bet that if a blank chromatogram was available taken just after these samples and spikes were run, component 1 of the doublet visible in the first blank would be slightly larger. Even if the blank of chromatogram A was taken after B,C,and D, it appears there was some carry over of chloroacetamide or a compound with a similar RT.
Not coincidence, trickery, seeing faces in clouds: just standard observations of a common feature of GC analysis. But hopefully this demonstrates the hazards of this sort of analysis.
The fact that all four chromatograms are to scale is easily confirmed by calculating the RT for the first strong peak which is present in all four and you will find its equal. Or check the distance between the chart lines.
In the interest of pointing out where we could go from here in a scientific vein, the chromatograms in the dissertation have all the signs of being generated from "packed" columns. These are rigid steel, glass or copper tubes of maybe 1 m in length filled with th enecessary chemicals. A better was of doing GC is to use a "capilliary" column which is maybe 20 m long and much better at resolving out components.
But heres another question:
I have heard that there is 0.26% (I presume w/w) chloroacetamide in the suspect "modern" ink. And the results to date, where positive gave 6.5 ppm. So where are the other 2593.5 ppm if it is the modern ink? The results is for 0.25% of the amount expected. According to the result to hand the ink had a concentartion of 0.00065% chloroacetamide which I doubt is enough to produce its desired effect as a preservative. Had an uncertainty analysis being done (and that is normal) we would be looking at, conservatively speaking, 10 maybe 15% uncertainty. Which calls it into question even more.The normal thing is to quote results with a significance level (ie. we are 95% sure that there was compoynd x present). PLus, quantification is best performed on peaks that go to baseline as its easier to fit the underlying continuum. These peaks dont. This chromatogram presents challenges for quantification that maybe many would think twice about.
So here is some summary:
The identification of the compound and its quantification were arguably:
based on chromatograms that were not fully resolved,
that displayed a signal in the analytical region of interest in the blank,
a signal that was apparently carried over to other runs,
to produce a result that constituted about 0.25% of the "expected" result,
that did not include any estimate of uncertainty,
using a method which is generally accepted cannot be used to 100% identify a compound,
on a once off analysis.
And to see how you feel about all this, ask yourself the same question I do everyday when asked about a result:
If this compound was illegal and this was a sample analysed as part of court case, would you feel safe presenting this as evidence of possession or whatever knowing that someone could get a few years in the pokey on the strength of it?
Mr Poster
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 2:58 am: |
|
Hello RJ
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.
Ahhhhh now.......I'm not saying that. If you look at the report the blank has a signal where the analytical signal should be. May or may not be the suspect compound. It doesnt matter. That signal is "added" to all the other runs. The result is so low relative to what should have been there that it really needed double checking and the chromatograms are not what would be called optimum in terms of separation. In light of these facts and the fact that another lab could not find the suspect compound, the results shoudl never have entered the discussion and especially not in the way they have.
And regarding cash. The problem seems to me to be getting samples. If we are just talking about chloroacetamide, and lets say 100 samples in total including all the ones I described earlier then I doubt its going to come to 100,000.
And regarding chloroacetamide. A good lab with a GC-MS has a very good chance of 100% identifing chloroacetamide (and probably its different forms) with a very low chance of error and come up with a detection limit if it isnt there.
The "fuzziness" of most scientists answers to these questions I suspect are more to do with how questions are phrased to them. Chemists especially will only generally respond in detail to very specific questions. Instead of asking "can you date this ink ?" try asking "can you identify 2-chloroacetamide or n-chloroacetamide in a sub-milligram size sample of a pigment applied to a cellulose matrix where the suspect concentration is expected to be ca. 2500 ppm with 99% certainty if we provide replicate samples of the pigment and the matrix to which it is applied and samples of the matrix with no pigment" and if so "can you quantify the levels of the two compounds in the pigment with an uncertainty of less of 20% ?"
His answer to the first question is "probably not and if we could it will cost a lot", his answer to the second two may be very different.
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 7:28 am: |
|
Hello
I just want to clarify something. I have not said that anybody contaminated anything with the standard. I said its possible. I would expect that any lab worth its salt takes precautions. But that doesnt rule it out.And every chemist is aware of it especially when doing an analysis they do not do regularly.
Chloroacetamide is present in cosmetics, shoe polish, and a host of other things. Plenty of sources of low level contamination there. Deliberate contamination is also unlikely. If that had been done I would have expected a very large signal from the sample. It would take a chemist to realistically contaminate a sample in a realistic manner.
I appreciate that this discussion will not force a new analysis of any sample but I think its important that people are able to draw their own conclusions from the scientific material available and that any points highlighted will be noted by those trying to arrange new analysis, as I have heard they are.
Just to focus the mind however, I suggest anyone interested reads the accounts of the forensic evidence used to convict the Birmingham Six which is the best example of how the best labs and the best procedures can get it extremely wrong when it comes to contamination even when mens lives are at stake. Would anyone here want to be convicted on the basis of the analysis done on the ink so far?
Its interesting though that one of the more contentious pieces of evidence has never been thrashed out by chemists.
Mr POster
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster,
You'll get no flack from me here.
I believe the science done so far in this case is problematic at best and directly contradictory at worst and is clearly insufficient to establish a definitive conclusion concerning the age of the document.
And I believe that thorough, responsible, careful tests using the latest technologies within a situation where the scientists are given all the old reports and unlimited access to the materials for testing is still what remains necessary if we are ever going to learn all we can from science about this document.
You write:
A good lab with a GC-MS has a very good chance of 100% identifing chloroacetamide (and probably its different forms) with a very low chance of error and come up with a detection limit if it isnt there.
I'm pleased to hear this and would be delighted to hear more about what a good lab could do if they had unlimited access to the diary and whatever else they needed.
If what you say in the above passage is true, then we know at least that further careful testing can solve the chloro. issue once and for all.
I hope it happens.
Many thanks,
--John
PS: We do indeed live in different professional worlds. Thanks for the kind words. Sincerely. I couldn't survive in yours either. 
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 891
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Mr Poster
NOw, I can understand that you are not familiar with GC or chemistry maybe.
Wherever did you get that idea?
As a matter of fact, although I am a mathematician rather than a chemist by training, I dd spent several years modelling mathematically concentration profiles produced by shear dispersion, particularly in combination with a stationary phase.
The blank has a doublet at the same region as chloroacetamide. According to the standard chromatogram B, only the first component of the doublet is chloroacetamide. Yet the second component (which came from the blank) is visible to some extent in all the chromatograms indicating that the blank signal is being superimposed on all the chromatograms. That means the second component of the doublet will be visible in all chromatograms and the first, which just happens to coincide with the point on the trace where chloroacetamide occurs, will also be superimposed. In the final "spiked" chromatogram, the second component is now visible as a shoulder on the chloroacetamide peak as the concentartion of that component is much greater. And, even not being a betting man, I bet that if a blank chromatogram was available taken just after these samples and spikes were run, component 1 of the doublet visible in the first blank would be slightly larger. Even if the blank of chromatogram A was taken after B,C,and D, it appears there was some carry over of chloroacetamide or a compound with a similar RT.
You seem to be suggesting either that the apparatus was contaminated with chloroacetamide, or that the acetone contained a substance with the same retention time as chloroacetamide, giving rise to a tiny peak on the control chromatogram (A). (Presumably you are in fact suggesting contamination with chloroacetamide, as you're willing to bet the tiny peak would be bigger in another control run following the chloroacetamide runs.)
But this peak in the control run is far smaller than the peak observed for the "extract of the black dots" (C). Surely you don't question on this basis the finding that the "extract from the dots" exhibits a real peak at the same point as the chloroacetamide signal?
If you're suggesting the ink or the paper contained something else with exactly the same retention time as chloroacetamide, that's a different matter, but in that case I can't see the relevance of all the discussion about the chromatograms.
I have heard that there is 0.26% (I presume w/w) chloroacetamide in the suspect "modern" ink. And the results to date, where positive gave 6.5 ppm. So where are the other 2593.5 ppm if it is the modern ink? The results is for 0.25% of the amount expected.
Hasn't this been discussed here in the last few days? (I can't find the posts at the moment.)
Doesn't this depend how much ink was present in the dots, and how much acetone was used to extract it? Isn't a 0.25% dilution quite believable?
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Hi Mr Poster
Facinating stuff as always. THe comparisson of the Birmingham six certainly set me re-thinking other stuff I've been working on recently-another rewrite tonight.
Actually the thing that really grabed me was the comment about washing liquid and washing powder.
So lets work on John and Jenni's modern hoax theory.
If the diary is indeed a shoddy, lazy, badly researched artifact. I think the last thing our forger will be concerned about is a little contamination.
Is shoddy hoaxer going to sterilize container before he dilutes ink? I THINK NOT
So if John and Jenni be right, shoddy hoaxer takes an old Jam jar fills it with water and the powder he has just purchased, dilutes it, which we know he did, and stirs it all together with his tea spoon.
If we are indeed dealing with John and Jenni's shoddy hoaxer, I would suggest testing for the following substances:
Stawberry Jam (Happy Shopper)
Butter (ASDA's own)
Washing Up liquid (TESCO)
Tea (PG Tips)
Water (Liverpool stuff containing Floride)
Petrol (used to run Robin Reliant)
Rubber (dont ask)
Mc Vities Rich Tea Biscuits. (bought broken)
Ink traces from the sun news paper and Playboy.
Well that should all be there somewhere if our modern Hoax theorists are correct.
What do you think everyone?
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:28 am: |
|
Sorry, Jeff.
I didn't understand that at all.
Even a basic, simple, literate hoaxer could use ink, right?
I suspect we just have very different ideas what a person would have to be like to be considered sophisticated.
I do know about books, though. And this book is not.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
Its very simple John
If the diary is a shoddy modern hoax then it will quite simply contain modern contaminations in the ink......all sorts of crap...because it was not writen in laboritary conditions.
The water it was diluted with for a start will contain Floride....
We simply have to test for these to discover whether or not it is a modern Hoax.
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Jeff go for it.
see if you can prove its a shoddy modern hoax.
of course its not necessarily shoddy.
Jenni
ps i dont know if the water would contain flouride but the waterboard for liverpool would know that.
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
Jeff,
Why would you need "laboratory conditions" to use ink without filling it full of contaminants?
Surely, for instance, anyone, even in Liverpool, could buy a bottle of water. No?
I must be missing something here. I don't get your point.
But as I say, test away.
--John
PS: Hi Jenni. Cross-posting again.
(Message edited by omlor on April 28, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:57 am: |
|
Hi Mr Poster,
I have heard that there is 0.26% (I presume w/w) chloroacetamide in the suspect "modern" ink. And the results to date, where positive gave 6.5 ppm. So where are the other 2593.5 ppm if it is the modern ink? The results is for 0.25% of the amount expected. According to the result to hand the ink had a concentartion of 0.00065% chloroacetamide which I doubt is enough to produce its desired effect as a preservative.
This is a concern I have expressed many times in the past and I'm no chemist, just reasonably good at maths. I await your response to Chris P's very reasonable questions though:
Doesn't this depend how much ink was present in the dots, and how much acetone was used to extract it? Isn't a 0.25% dilution quite believable?
My other concern is, even if a new test could confirm beyond all reasonable doubt that chloroacetamide was in the ink as a result of the manufacturing process, would it prove beyond reasonable doubt that the ink is Diamine, or even modern - contra the various opinions and analyses (Voller, Eastaugh, Leeds) that the diary ink and Diamine differ either in age, appearance, behaviour or chemical make-up?
Only trying to express reasonable concerns about what testing can be expected to achieve regarding dating the diary.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Caroline worries about new testing and writes:
My other concern is, even if a new test could confirm beyond all reasonable doubt that chloroacetamide was in the ink as a result of the manufacturing process..
Well, hey, let's start with that. At least we'd learn something through science "beyond all reasonable doubt." That in itself would be a step forward.
And until qualified scientists get a look at the material to be tested and the old results, this discussion necessarily remains speculative.
So, let's make it more than that. Let's get some of them somewhere the stuff. Right?
Pleased by the new optimism about science our new friend has brought us,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 28, 2005) |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:09 am: |
|
Do you not see that if the hoaxer went out and bought a bottle of water he would have known about contamination. He would have understood about being cearful.
DOES THIS SOUND LIKE MIKE BARRETT....NO
and its not just a question of buying bottled water. Evrey container every stirer must be sterlized. Otherwise small particles left from doing the washing up will transfer into the ink.
and another thing...
You have no evidence that the inventory wasn’t available to the public before 1987.
No research has ever been done to show this. FACT
So nobody knows for sure.
How many national and provincial newspapers were consulted. 5%, 10%, 50%..? You dont know.
THe only way to know for sure is to test the diary, your guessing as much as Sir Robert.
Jeff
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:19 am: |
|
test it, test it, test it!
Good we all agree (except caroline who is scared of testing for some reason)
until that point here are the three explanations for tin match box empty, as far as I can see.
1) Genuine, somehow pure chance fluke and strangeness meant james maybrick wrote the phrase without seeing the police report, OR he saw it, even though thats impossible.
so good.
2) there is an old hoaxer, who had seen the police report at some point
3) a modern hoaxer after 1986 went and looked at the records or after 1987 saw it in a Ripper book.
where is the evidence for theory 1 or theory 2?
Hi Jeff,
there is no reason to suppose that Mike Barrett faked the diary. Its that simple.
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
Caz,
suppose the dairy is tested and it proves nothing.
What exactly has been lost?
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
Jeff,
If you think knowing you'd have to be careful when you mixed the ink is a sign of sophistication, then we obviously do have different ideas of what the word means. But I see no reason to think Mike or Anne or you or me or anyone else that has ever been mentioned on these threads would not have known that much when they set out to hoax an old diary.
But let's do the test and see what they say.
As for the police list -- we KNOW when it WAS available to the general public. After 1987.
We KNOW it was used in the composition of the diary.
And there is still no evidence of any sort that suggests it was available publicly anywhere before 1987.
So we are left with the choice between a simple common sense and obvious explanation that fits in with all the other material in the book and that uses a documented source we KNOW was available OR a dream and a hope based on no knowledge whatsoever.
Guess which one I'm gonna' pick?
It is, as they say, a no-brainer.
And there's no guessing needed. Just simple knowledge.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2267
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
or maybe after we've tested the dairy we could test the diary and supposing that that proved nothing?
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Your first scenario is indeed impossible, since the diary references not just the match box, but the two items next to it on the list as well, all in the same few lines. Clearly the composer was referring to the list that had these three specific items in consecutive order when he or she listed them together in the diary.
There is no evidence for number two, of course.
And number three makes simple and logical sense and fits in perfectly with all the other indications within the text of a modern date of composition.
Gee, I wonder what that tells us?
--John
PS: No testing of the dairy. It's cruel to the cows. 
(Message edited by omlor on April 28, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
John,
but everyone wants the dairy tested!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
Jenni
Surely Caz's fears are the same as ours.
If you carry out tests that are inconclusive you make matters worse.
There is no point in proving the ink contains substance X. If someone can stand up and prove substance X could have been in 1888 ink.
Its not as simple as just having good results, we need to be able to demonstrate and prove what those results mean.
John it still seems to me that your having your cake and eating it.
We know that the list was avaailable in 1987 we simply dont know whether it was available before that because NO research has ever been done and wasnt done properly at the time by either Martin Fido or Skinner: Fact.
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
Jeff,
More tests means at least that we learn more about the document. That can only be a good thing. And we can always do a little research and learn more about just where and when and how stuff the tests find was or was not used.
But as you yourself have reported, scientists would like to get a look at this thing and say what might or might not be possible in the lab. Shouldn't they be given that chance?
By the way, Jeff, it's just not true that no research has ever been done on the police list and its accessibility.
But in any case, I've given you the two choices -- we either have a simple common sense and obvious explanation that fits in with all the other material in the book and that uses a documented source we KNOW was available OR a dream and a hope based on no knowledge whatsoever.
Sometimes it pays just to be rational.
Especially when the other side has NOTHING. In each case. For every single one of the textual problems, without exception. Nothing every time.
And especially when another scenario explains ALL of them with simple, rational, and obvious explanations that make perfect sense.
That's the way inductive logic works.
And that's where we are here, right now.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 28, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
If you carry out tests that are inconclusive you make matters worse.
I can't agree Jeff, because I will tell you for why. i do not see how matters could be much worse. Today is an excellent demonstration of this.
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
John
re: testing
We are of course in total agreement.
re: Modern Hoax
Why I understand that your deduction is rational. You can not tell me how much research has been done on this 1987 point....even those who did it seem unable to supply me with that information.
We dont know.
And while I buy your modern hoax theory re: the contextural quotes.
I really only see this if Barrett produced it.
If Barrett produced it he would not have gone out and bought bottled water in 1988. He would have used the tap like every body else in Britain did. Bottle water is comparitively recent to the British psyci.
And dont go all pridantic...yes bottle water was available...of course it was...
But Barrett was a scouser who spent most of his time down the pub.
If your shoddy hoax theory holds any water (excuse pun) then contamination should be all over the bloody place.
Yet I think our tests will show it is not.
Which opens up everything, because as I've said before if Barrett didn't hoax it, then someone with some nouce, who new what they were trying to do, did.
But why.....are you telling me this is all one giant April fools Joke that went wrong...
I know you keep saying perhaps it wasn't Barrett but someone else, someone who used him as a patsie perhaps, but who..and why
Once you eleminate Barrett then almost anything becomes possible.
Am I the only person who can see that!
Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 893
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
Jeff
We know that the list was avaailable in 1987 we simply dont know whether it was available before that because NO research has ever been done and wasnt done properly at the time by either Martin Fido or Skinner: Fact.
David O'Flaherty did go to the trouble of researching this.
I think the least you could do is have a look at his posts in the archives rather than posting wild, misleading statements like this. Or just ask people for information first.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
Jeff,
There's not enough evidence yet to rule Mike Barrett in or out as the hoaxer or one of the hoaxers.
But whether he was or not does not change the evidence in the text of a modern date of composition -- evidence which an old hoax theory is utterly unable to explain, as has been demonstrated here vividly in the past two days.
And no matter what hoaxer you are talking about, if they set about to create a seemingly old document in ink, they would be certainly be careful about the ink -- even the dumb ones, right?
So I don't see that you have demonstrated anything at all.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Actually young Sky walker it is you that is going to find out you have been wrong about a great many things:
There is no evidence the inventory wasn't available to the public prior to 1987. All you have is what everyone else has, namely a claim that no reference to the match box (and other items) is known to exist in the newspapers checked for it. What you dont know is how many papers have been checked or how thoroughly.
Actually, research was done in 1992 and it was done properly. It was done by Martin, Keith and Paul, who were hired as consultants on the Ripper by both Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman. They knew that the only place they’d seen reference to the match box inventory was in the inventory in the Eddowes inquest papers, so Keith undertook a search through newspapers in search of mention of the match box and he didn’t find one. From this they concluded that the reference to the match box and other items could indicate a post-1987 composition date for the diary, but they made the caveat that nothing like all the contemporary newspapers had been checked and the inventory could have been published in one of them. The research was therefore done and done as fully and as adequately as was necessary at the time, but the caveat remains.
You seem to discount that caveat young Sky Walker, which I think is irresponsible, and makes rather bold claims based on research conducted by other people. The full extent of which I don’t think you really know or understand.
You dont know the power of the dark side.
Yours Mr Vader
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Ok John you think that our 'shoddy Hoaxer' may have thought of buying bottled water but your thinking is two dementional from a 2005 veiw point.
Ok it is down to semantics, namely what we mean by “sophisticated”, but what reason is there to suppose that Mike Barrett or Anne Graham would have thought about tell-tale modern ingredients in tap water? Would they have ever imagined that the diary would be subjected to that sort of test? I mean, the only previous example we have of faked documents are the so-called Abberline diaries produced by Joseph Sickert and Melvyn Fairclough’s book based upon those diaries, The Ripper and the Royals got into print back in 1991 without so much as a sniff of any tests being done. It has subsequently seen paperback publication and a new edition as recently as 2002. I don’t doubt that Mike or Anne or anyone else might anticipate tests and take steps to avoid detection, but in the Ripper field (where, like with UFOs and the Bermuda Triangle a saleable sensation has mattered far more than scientific factual evidence) there isn’t a precedent for such tests. Therefore, if one doesn’t have to worry about such tests, would one necessarily take steps to counter them?
If Barrett or Anne Graham were involved in the production of the diary end of the 1980's its very unlikely that given what was known at the time, even by people in the know...that they would have bothered trying to sterilize the mixing utensils for the mixing of their thin ink or try to use distilled water.
It doesn't make sense...
So we are dealing with someone who did understand such things? ie able to pass tests
Or something else
and the last thing we need is any old tests to learn info about the diary..
We need specific tests.....making the best use of money available..to specifically date the diary.
May the force be with you.
Jeff |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
"Also, the technician can use a blank sample (containing no detectable compounds) to test the GC/MS instrument's data reporting accuracy. If the device indicates the presence of a substance in the blank sample, the device may contain residue from prior analysis. If this occurs, the technician must retune and recalibrate the GC/MS instrument."
Mr. Poster -- I respect your expertise and your sincerity, but my understanding, as a lay person, and having read descriptions of Dr. Simpson's procedure, is that this was done. As it was explained to me, the apparatus was recalibrated after the blank runs, and the presence of chloroacetamide couldn't be accounted for by incidental contaminaton. As I say, there were long posts on this subject about 5 or 6 years ago (some dating from before I was here) with statements by some fellow named Mr. Kazlauciunas of Leeds, as well as some other chemist who was posting, etc. I feel fairly certain that details about the type of columns used, etc. were put up onto the screen, and I wish I could find them for your use. Unfortunately, there are an unbelievable amount of posts (thousands) in the archives and I haven't the time nor the patience to retrieve the appropriate ones. I believe the idea behind limiting the test to merely determining the presence of chloroacetamide was that the ink was nigrosine (which no one was disputing) and that Diamine's chemist stated that Diamine was the only manuscript ink in 1991 that was using nigrosine, (as well as the trace amount of chloroacetamide). In other words, this ink test was, as you say, highly limitted, but it was already assumed (through the lack of provenance, the textual evidence, the expert opinion of Rendell's team, etc. ) that the Diary was a modern forgery. The AFI test wasn't really meant to 'disprove' the Diary as such; it was only meant to test the theory that Mike Barrett was correct about the brand of ink he bought. RP
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Jeff,
"There is no evidence the inventory wasn't available to the public prior to 1987."
Yes, there is. It's a fact. It's common knowledge, but if you want the mind-numbing details, see what I posted in the Tin Match Box Empty thread. I also have about a months worth of inquiries with the CLRO and the National Archives on the availability of the Eddowes inquest. I've transcribed them in a Word file I'm happy to send to anyone who wants to drop me a line at oflaherty@casebook.org
Cheers,
Dave
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Caz--Thanks for reprinting that chronology once again. The only date I have a problem with is this:
Mike Barrett places an order by phone, on or around March 9 1992 for a Victorian diary.
This is an estimate based on the bookseller's hunch of how long it would take to find such a item. We don't know when Barrett placed the order. It would be equally true to write:
Mike Barret places an order by phone, on or around March 7 1992..." or March 5th, 1992..'
The implication being, there is no proof that Barrett didn't order the Diary first, and then, assuming it was on the way, went fishing for a literary agent afterwards. I wonder if there is any documentation to show why Barrett didn't meet with Montgomery until April? Was the delay Doreen's doing, or was it Barrett's? And yes, I am suggesting the maroon diary came before the scrapbook. As Martin once wrote, "I am always more interested in broad patterns of probability than supposed definite conclusions resting on minutiae of dating." (March 22, 2001) |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
I understand that you investigated whether the inquest papers containing the inventory had been open to public inspection at any time prior to 1987.
And that you did not undertake any research whatsoever into whether the inventory was published in any newspapers prior to Fido in 1987.
is this understanding correct?
Jeff
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 895
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Jeff
From this they concluded that the reference to the match box and other items could indicate a post-1987 composition date for the diary, but they made the caveat that nothing like all the contemporary newspapers had been checked and the inventory could have been published in one of them.
The difficulty is that because the precise phrase in the inventory is reproduced in the diary, so you would have to be talking about a verbatim reproduction of the inventory in a provincial newspaper.
Can you give us any other example of a similar police document being reproduced verbatim by a contemporary newspaper, provincial or otherwise?
The other difficulty is that this "explanation" involves the diarist going to a tremendous amount of trouble searching for obscure details about the Ripper case in provincial newspapers.
Can you suggest why he or she should have done this? What was the point? If it was done to add plausibility, why pick an obscure detail that - on the old hoax theory - no one knew about anyway, and no one might ever discover?
And then, after going to all that trouble, why simply copy the phrase down in such a way that - if the inventory was ever discovered and compared with the diary - would reveal it as a fake?
It just doesn't make any sense. I can't believe these hypotheses are really put forward in the hope any reasonable person will find them plausible.
It feels far more as though people are playing a game, along the lines of "I can argue my way around any evidence you throw at me". And, of course, you can, provided the "explanation" doesn't have to be plausible or make any sense.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
And so we can conclude that the old hoax 'theory' does not make any logic or sense at all in any way shape or form, and is in effect utter bs?
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
