|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 104
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:35 pm: | 
|
I dont have to prove anything.
I'm not the one saying that the diary is a Modern Hoax.
Its up to you to prove that it is impossible for the hoaxer to know this information before 1987.
and NOBODY has proved that...case open..Sir Robert is simply correct...its obvious.
I'm on the fence and looking at the facts as they are known.
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
but Jeff,
here is the thing,
the information was not known by the general public at that time. However many copies of the list there were. which does necessarily mean that its either modern or the coroner or some such body forged in which case how did mike Barrett get a hold of it?
Jenni
ps i know I am biased!
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
I've got to go so let me just make this clear:
David O’Flaherty has demonstrated quite convincingly that the Eddowes inquest papers (to which a list of Eddowes possessions was appended) was not available to the public until the 1980s. He did NOT demonstrate that the inventory or a part thereof mentioning the empty tin match box wasn’t published in a contemporary newspaper.
it isn’t disputed that the actual inventory itself was not available to the public, it IS disputed that the first publication of that inventory or the relevant part therof was in Fido’s book published in 1987. It is disputed because not every newspaper was checked, only a representative sample.
It is up to those that wish to prove the diary is a Modern Hoax to prove this information was never available...I'm on the fence....you prove your point....you havent.
THE RESEARCH HAS NOT BEEN DONE...FINISH
It is up to Sir Robert to prove nothing you are making the claim not him.
use the force...Jeff
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Twelve years on from 1993, no one has found that line in any contemporary newspaper. Over 2000 articles have been transcribed for the Casebook Press Project, some of which I've transcribed myself.
If you believe that the line DID appear in a newspaper of the time (or any time before 1987), you must show us where and when.
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 897
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Jeff
I dont have to prove anything.
If you're now a fully paid up member of the "Whatever evidence I'm faced with I can invent some way round it - it doesn't matter whether it's plausible or makes any sense at all, provided it doesn't contravene the laws of physics" brigade, I don't think there's much point anyone trying to have a sensible discussion with you.
But I wish you'd satisfy my curiosity - when a straightforward explanation is available, which neatly and logically explains all the evidence - why is it so important to you to keep the "old hoax" possibility open?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 898
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:15 pm: |
|
Jeff
THE RESEARCH HAS NOT BEEN DONE...FINISH
Looking at it a different way, can we swap places?
Can you tell me what sort of evidence would convince you that the diary was modern?
Whatever you suggest, I'll undertake to come up with an alternative explanation that doesn't contravene the laws of physics. It may be wildly implausible, but that's the nature of the territory.
The outcome is that nothing can ever be proved, and we'll have to live in a world ruled by superstition and gullibility, and run by tricksters and charlatans. (Hmmm - anyone in middle of the UK election campaign may have a word or two to say about that!)
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
" the precise phrase in the inventory is reproduced in the diary"
No; it's darn close but it's not precisely the same. Whether this is a transcription error by the hoaxer, or coincidental, or evidence the hoaxer didn't have his or her source material in front of them, it's not the phrase.
"tin match box empty" is not
"1 Tin MatchBox, empty"
And more interesting is the fact that if Evans has it down correctly as "Match Box" then the Diarist corrected Fido's mistake.
"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?"
I recognize that you are wedded to the modern hoax theory, but if you believe as I do that the Diary MIGHT pre-date the 80's and Barrett's involvement, it is not unreasonable to think that quite possibly the Diary was hoaxed as a private joke or whim. After all, if it is old, it wasn't brought forward at the time of its creation. Perhaps it wasn't meant to.
"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."
I feel precisely that way about the modern hoax theorists.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Jeff,
I was going to respond to your earlier post to me, once I figured out why you called me some name from Star Wars. But it seems now that I don't have to as David and Chris have done a fine job in pointing out the desperate gap in your logic.
Now if you or anyone can answer Chris's final question directly with a reasonable response or offer even a single piece of evidence that supports any other alternative, then you will have said something meaningful.
Otherwise, we've been having this discussion for two days now and the facts haven't changed.
There is a list of problematic items in and surrounding the text.
Every single one of these without exception, from the police list to the Poste House to the modern letter formation to the mistakes found also in modern sources to the complete lack of any verifiable provenance to the behavior and lying of those who brought us the text in the first place and more -- every single one of them can be explained simply and easily using common sense and available documents if the diary is considered a modern hoax.
How many of them can be explained that way if you think the diary was an old hoax?
None.
Not a single one.
Every one is explained under a modern hoax scenario without needing any help from dreams or wishes.
Not a single one can be explained under an old hoax scenario. All they have is dreams and wishes.
Over and over again the pattern repeats itself.
Simple inductive logic therefore allows for a common sense and perfectly valid conclusion.
And you have not offered a single piece of information or a single piece of evidence or a single thought even that would alter that situation or logically allow for any other conclusion in rational terms.
And neither has anyone else.
Now you can keep saying over and over, as if you were wishing on a star, "gee, maybe there' still something out there we haven't heard about yet."
But you'd have to say it and pray for it not once, not twice, but in each and every case with each and every separate problem in the text.
And you don't have to say it at all if the diary is a modern hoax, because we HAVE heard about it -- we have the logical explanation right in front of us.
All the textual evidence can be simply and neatly accounted for by one side.
None of it can be simply and neatly accounted for by the other side.
So what does that mean?
And why does the other side keep praying and hoping and inventing fantasies as a replacement for rational, evidenced arguments supported by actual documents (of the sort the modern hoax side offers)?
Why?
Because that's all that there is. That's all that they can find. That's all that they can offer in each and every case about every single one of these problems.
It's two days now and the only thing that has happened is that this sad state of affairs concerning the case for the old hoax has been demonstrated clearly over and over again.
And of course, the efficiency, the simplicity, the obviousness, the evidenced case for the text being a modern one has been demonstrated clearly over and over again.
I'm happy that's happening, and I can see and hear the frustration in the voices on the other side (the petty silences, the name calling, the cracks about typos, the desperate pleas of "FINISH" as if that were enough to establish logical truth without evidence, the panicked shifting of the burden of proof when facing a complete lack of evidence on one side). But frustration and the attendant rhetorical strategies that so often and so sadly accompany it are no substitute for a simple logical rational and evidenced explanation that accounts for all the textual difficulties without exception. And that's what a modern hoax scenario offers.
So feel free to keep going here, but you aren't going to say anything new, you aren't going to offer any evidence, the only available evidenced and rational explanation for the list being in the diary is STILL going to be that it was put there after 1987 and the old hoax case is still going to have nothing material whatsoever to support it.
And the more that's demonstrated here, the better off we are.
Thanks and all the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 28, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1495
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Sir Robert returns.
Let's see if he has been able to answer any of the fine simple and direct questions he was asked yesterday.
Hmmmmmm..
Still reading....
Nope.
Not a one.
That should tell you all you need to know about the state of the evidence and about what he actually has to support the textual case for the old hoax.
Nothing at all.
And of course the modern hoax theorists' case, contrary to his final throw-away line, does include an explanation that makes perfect sense -- the list was available to the general public after 1987 and therefore it would have been simple to use it when composing the diary. We know that much for sure. Obviously, since he has not cited any evidence that says the list was available at any other point, he knows nothing that would explain the list's appearance in an old hoax in any solid, rational, or evidenced way.
And this is just of a number of textual problems for which the same is true.
Modern hoax -- a simple explanation for all of these problems which is supported by what we know and makes perfect sense. Old hoax -- no explanation for any of them and only the rather desperate and unevidenced hope that there's something out there we know nothing about.
That about sums it up.
And it hasn't changed since the discussion started.
Anyone think it's about to?
I'm at least grateful for the continuing demonstration,
--John |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Chris Phillips:
Hi, The following old post by Martin Fido explains it.
"there was for a long time an assumption in the diarist camp that demanding a scenario (in which little moth-holes could then be gnawed) was a valid way of undercutting opposition. (It was comparable with their mad passion for 'prove it' practical experiments, from trying to get Mike to write a page of diary, to challenging Melvin Harris to produce some of the convincing forgeries he said he could easily do).
It is however, perfectly valid to consider broad outline hypotheses that might explain historical cruces, and see which best fit the facts as far as possible and seem generally probable. I believe that the unwillingness of 'old diarists' to give serious weight to the general outline I have suggested above [ie., joint project of Barrett and Graham] rests less on historical considerations than on their humane and commendable perception of Anne Graham as a pleasant woman who has done a fine job in single-parenting her daughter and redeveloping her own career, while plagued by a horrendous marital breakdown and an enormous amount of unwanted pubic attention...."
Martin Fido, 23 March 2001.
The claim that Barrett didn't have the skill to write it is a flimsy argument, because he was married to, and living with, a woman who has demonstrated her literary ability. The probabilites have already been outlined. The question becomes whether there is any reasonable way of forcing the issue. I don't see that there is.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 28, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Hey Dave - Take a gander at this, and I understand full well that this would not have been the source for the hoaxer. (Cotton?!?!) Doesn't it look like the newspaper clearly knew what possessions Eddowes had ? I think it could be fairly deduced that they were supplied with the inventory, or a copy of a copy.
From The Times, 1 October 1888:
“She wore a pair of men's laced boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck. There were also found upon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box with cotton in it, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings, a printed handbill with the name "Frank Cater, 405, Bethnal road," upon it, a check pocket containing five pieces of soap, a small tin box containing tea and sugar, a portion of a pair of spectacles, a three cornered check handkerchief, and a large white linen pocket containing a small comb, a red mitten, and a ball of worsted.”
(Message edited by sirrobert on April 28, 2005)
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1497
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Oh, good.
Sir Robert has dug up this old report (which has appeared here a number of times before).
It gives me a chance to do something I have always wanted to do.
Cite Paul Feldman as an authority.
That's right, I'm going to cite Paul Feldman and actually use him to support the case for a modern hoax.
Check it out:
Paul reprints the list and then adds,
"Press reports add a pair of spectacles, one mitten, and a printed card for 'Frank Carter, 305 Bethnal Green Road.' They describe the outer chintz dress as having a pattern of chrysanthemums or Michealmas daisies and lilies. The white apron was so dirty that at first glance it seemed black. However, one thing on the official police list never published was the 'Tin Match Box, empty.'
"Our diarist had written, 'damn it, the tin box was empty.'
"Not only was the complete police list never published at the time, but the existence of this list was not even known about until the original document was rediscovered in 1984. It was not even published until Donald Rumbelow and Martin Fido did so in their books on the subject of Jack the Ripper in 1987.
"The fact is that the empty tin match box did not appear in any press report at the time. As happens today, police held back information from the press that only the murderer would know.
"The seven words that our diarist wrote meant that the diary either had to be a modern forgery or we were looking at a document that nobody ever felt would be discovered, the emotions and words written by the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders.
"If the diary was a modern forgery, then once again its author had shown his diligence. He may have read the list of Catherine Eddowes' belongings in the books published in 1987, but could not have known that "Tin Match Box, Empty" was held back from the media (Oh Mr Abberline, he is a clever little man, he keeps back all that he can) [...]
"From the evidence we had it clear that the police had not informed the press of this particular item only."
So then, we know that the police informed the press of Kate's belongings. We have always known this.
But there is still no evidence that even suggests that any old hoaxer could have seen the actual list itself, complete with the empty tin match box, and used it in a diary.
There is however clear and specific evidence that they could have seen it after 1987.
Because it was published and readily available.
And this simple, evidenced, common sense explanation also happens to fit in nicely with all the other textual indications of a modern date of composition.
No other explanation (and notice that none yet even exist) does.
So the situation remains exactly the same.
To no one's surprise, I'm sure.
And -- though I never thought I'd say it -- thanks, Paul. (heh heh heh)
--John
PS: If Sir Robert thinks "it could be fairly deduced that they were supplied with the inventory, or a copy of a copy" from this press report, then he needs to look up the definition of "deduction" in the dictionary. This only tells us what we have already known forever, that the press was informed about these items.
PPS: Those five specific unanswered questions remain. The old hoax crowd can't begin to answer them, obviously.
(Message edited by omlor on April 28, 2005) |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 106
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Cheers guys but I'm afraid that I am neither an old Hoax theorist or a modern Hoax theorist.
I have simply been pointing out the gaping hole in your arguement.
That if no research has been done. And lets face it all I'm getting back is hot air.
Then you can not start saying the Modern Hoax is theory is the only one that stands
Because it does not..
I ask again how many papers have been checked?
5% 10% 20% 30% ???????????
Give me a direct answer to a direct question.
I am advocating nothing. It is you that are building sand castles not I.
Please give me an answer to my question...I dont beleive you can..
Which is why I'm saying for once I agree with Sir Robert.
That does not make me an Old Hoax advocist...It makes me a person unconvinced by your evidence or lack of it.
Jeff |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 838
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Yup, the match box is mentioned in a couple of different reports, but what's needed is the matchbox empty line reproduced in the diary. And so far, like John is saying, it hasn't turned up. Press Project is by no means complete, but look at all the papers transcribed there, and the line hasn't appeared. And in the last few years, newspaper research has really taken off. Maybe when everything's digitalized, we'll finally be able to say definitevly. Ask yourself this: if Ripperologists and enthusiasts haven't found it after years of wading through the papers, how likely is it our hoaxer would have found it (assuming it's found in some obscure paper)?
But hey, you're checking sources so I can't say you're lazy anymore.  By the way, did you notice how the Times mentions the Frank Cater card, which doesn't turn up in the official inventory list? Makes me wonder what they were looking at.
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
[I wrote]
"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."
I feel precisely that way about the modern hoax theorists.
But there's very real difference - you can't provide any evidence at all that points to the hoax being old.
So there's nothing for us to argue our way round, is there?
Can you honestly not see any difference there?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Jeff,
You write: Then you can not start saying the Modern Hoax is theory is the only one that stands."
Uh, we can certainly say that the modern hoax theory is the only one that has real documented evidence to support it.
Not a single one of the textual problems in the diary has any explanation that uses any evidence at all to support it within an old hoax theory.
Every textual problem has a simple and evidenced common-sense explanation based on stuff we DO know about to support it within a modern hoax theory.
Again, that's Old hoax -- no evidence. Modern hoax -- plenty of evidence and a simple explanation for each problem.
Now, if given a choice between a theory based on solid evidence we KNOW about and a theory based on hope concerning stuff we don't know, I'm gonn' go with the evidence and feel proud that I am a rational human being.
But maybe that's just me,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 900
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
I think it could be fairly deduced that they were supplied with the inventory, or a copy of a copy.
I don't understand this. If they were supplied with a copy of the inventory, which describes the match box as empty, why does the report say it contained cotton?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 902
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Jeff
I ask again how many papers have been checked?
5% 10% 20% 30% ???????????
Give me a direct answer to a direct question.
This really takes the cake. You and Sir Robert do nothing but ignore direct questions!
My straight answer is that I don't know what percentage of newspapers have been checked, but I do know that a tremendous amount of hard work has been put into checking newspapers. Likewise David has put a lot of work into clarifying the real position over the availability of the inventory, despite all the claptrap we were being fed by Caroline Morris about "experts" having "done their homework" and telling her that the document would have been open to inspection in the 1930s.
Frankly I think your arrogance in coming here and saying "no research has been done" is absolutely breathtaking.
And what about giving us some straight answers yourself?
If you're asking us to believe that the inventory is likely to have been published verbatim by a provincial English newspaper, can you give us a single example of a similar police document on the Whitechapel Murders, or any other Victorian murder for that matter? If you can, then I'll treat your contention with a bit more respect.
But after all, I don't think this is really the issue, is it?
If 100% of English newspapers were digitised, and "tin match box empty" were to be absent from the database, we'd surely be told that the phrase could have appeared in an overseas newspaper.
If the overseas newspapers were all eliminated, we'd then be told (in fact, we're already being told) that there could have been another copy of the document that was open to public inspection.
If it could be proved that no official copy had ever been made, then no doubt we'd be told that the coroner could have made a private copy, unofficially, and that it could have been handed down in his family (or something).
Isn't it obvious that it's intrinsically impossible to prove that the phrase came from Fido's book, in the sense you are expecting? That kind of proof is rarely possible in any field except mathematics.
But isn't it equally obvious that the straightforward explanation is vastly more likely than the ever more convoluted explanations that are being contrived to keep the "old hoax" theory alive?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 903
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Mr Poster wrote:
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.
I wrote:
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?
Caroline Morris wrote:
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
I've now found the reply I remembered, which was in AAD's response to Caroline Morris's previous query about this.
I repeat it in case she missed it first time:
Many posts in the past addressed this point and showed that the amount was irrelevant. It was enough that the chemical WAS found. Dr. Simpson also showed in her tests that she had to prepare a DILUTION anyway, which again renders the amount irrelevant. It was suggested that the diary ink had been watered down before it was used also. But with only 0.000583 g. total weight of the black ink spots (including the diary paper to which they were attached) it will be seen how infinitesimally small amounts were involved. The result was that Dr. Diana Simpson MPhil PhD FIFST CEng FIM FRSH CChem FRSC stated that 'the presence of chloroacetamide in the extract of the black dots' was shown.
Can I ask Mr Poster another question - where does the 6.5 ppm of chloroacetamide come from? I can't see an estimate of the concentration in the AFI report.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 4:09 am: |
|
Man,
diary world is so confusing.
So since we all agree tin mach box empty at least proves the diary is a hoax,
i'm not going to get too hung up about it
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 904
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
R J Palmer wrote:
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.
Yes. This was Dr Simpson's comment:
With reference to our report, there was no question of contamination as between each determination 'blank' determinations of solvent were run; a different detector was used, and calibrations were performed at the nanogram level.
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhevid2.html
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 905
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
|
R J Palmer wrote:
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 can't see any posts by Kazlauciunas himself, though he is mentioned in a lengthy exchange between Melvin Harris and Paul Begg. It seems that among other things Kazlauciunas had picked up an erroneous statement from the A-Z about the chloroacetamide concentration detected in the ink samples by AFI. In fact, the figure in question was the concentration of a pure chloroacetamide sample - this had been misunderstood by the authors of the A-Z.
Apparently Caroline Morris had been quoting a different figure for the concentration - source unknown. (I don't know whether this is the same figure she is still quoting, as I haven't seen her original post.)
Anyway, Harris emphasised that AFI hadn't attempted to quantify the chloroacetamide concentration, only to test whether it was present. And he pointed out forcefully that the suggestion that the chloroacetamide concentration should have been higher ignores the dilution that took place when acetone was used to extract the ink.
Begg also referred to a reply to Harris by Mr. Kazlauciunas of the Wolfson Laboratory "(published on pg.202 of Paul Feldman’s book), in which he described Harris as a ‘muddled gentleman’ and some of his comments as ‘inept ramblings’, and in which he strongly defended his results, his staff and the reputation of his laboratory".
[23 October 2000]
(The results referred to apparently initially indicated the presence of chloroacetamide, then failed to indicate its presence, the first being attributed to contamination.)
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 29, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
So really what is needed is that the ink needs retesting?
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
Ah ha
I finally get a direct answer from chris philips. And his answer is exactly what my research and conclusions have lead me to beleive.
Namely that you do not know how many papers have been transcribed or checked.
And I certainly dont see why I should be answering questions about 'Old hoax theorys'? I know absolutely nothing about any such theories, although if someone has one I'm willing to listen because I'm a tv jounrnalist investigating ideas for a story...part of which includes the Maybrick diary hoax. It is therefore my job to ask difficult questions and try and get to the bottom of differant sides of an arguement. Which is what I'm trying to do.
The importance of this question is quite simple. Can those of you who support a 'Modern Hoax theory' prove your hypothesis?
And the answer is no....you can only give me probablility, which is fine....In all probability the Maybrick diary is a modern hoax.. I can see that. But it is not the same thing as proof, do you except this philip?
Overr 2000 articles may indeed have been transcribed and be on the Casebook, but only a small percentage of those articles pertain to the Eddowes murder and the bulk of those are transcriptions from United States newspapers, wo there are a lot of British provincial newspapers that haven’t been transcribed or perhaps even looked at, and, I suspect, quite a few national ones too. But let’s see how likely it is that the matchbox would have been mentioned – of the 2000 articles, how many mention the “red cigarette case”. As far as I can tell it’s mentioned by the Irish Times, Woodford Times, The Times and the East London Observer between 1-6 October 1888. That’s four articles out of over 2000 that mention the red cigarette case. The Star refers to a cigarette case.
Now, you can interpret this in two ways. You could say that the number of newspapers mentioning the red cigarette case are so few that the chances of the matchbox being mention are slender, or you could argue that the number of transcribed UK reports hardly representative
The fact that 2000 articles have been transcribed proves absolutely nothing because 1996 of those articles didn’t mention the red cigarette case and if we only have those 1996 articles we’d say the balance of probability was heavily against the red cigarette case being mentioned anywhere. Yet it was mentioned in four newspaper reports. So the fact that we have 2000 transcribed articles in which none mention the empty matchbox probably proves nothing at all, especially as only a small number of UK national and provincial newspapers have been fully transcribed.
I have merely been trying to point out that the fact you have found nothing as yet is meaningless. It just means we dont know. As we dont know the true identity of Mary Jane Kelly... and during this time many more people have been searching for her. It doesn't mean she does not exist.
Over the past few months I have been working on the Hammersmith nude murders. The only authoritive book on the subject is by a journalist called Brian O'connell. The book is rather silacious writen in 1974 called 'Found dead and Naked' but contains an interesting chapter on Hannah Tailford. A few weeks ago I went down the Met archives and managed to get a copy of the original inquest. I was certainly the only person ever to have opened and read this document since the original inquest...certainly it would not have been available in 1974.
There were nearly 200 pages of witness statements but I was surprised just how accurate the basic facts in Brian O'connells book were. In fact one story he relayed about an old couple beleiving Hannah or Dolly as they called her, was very depressed was very accurately portrayed, yet he had never read their statement. My guess is that Brian O'connall's only verification for this book was to ask his fellow journalists for copies of there notes.
I'm afraid I can not supply you with direct quotes or lists that transcribe but I'd say his sources were pritty good.
Apart from small facts like Hannah being bought up at Blue Bell cottage (she was only born there) most of the book checked out factually pritty well. Indeed I'd love to get my hand son his original source notes because it details stories I have not been able to cross referance.
But this is aside. I have every respect for people like David's hard work in transcibing news paper articles and my comments were in no way intended as a critisism of his work. I have simply been trying to assertain how many papers had actually been checked.
And as we can see there is no proof that the quote is not out there.
I except that the modern Hoax is the most likely diary senario. But the points Sir Robert was making were both fair and incontravertable.
And if you'll forgive me making the odd crass quote re: old hoax/new hoax theories.
'I'm not all together on anybodies side because know bodies all together on my side.'
I know you all love finding quotes.
Jeff
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
no one can prove anything round her Jeff, thats why 13 years later here we all are.
Life is such fun like that
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 108
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
True jenni...I know I know nothing...
But I feel I have the right to ask questions without being accused of being something I clearly am not. I felt my research and sources on this were pretty good. When I said 'The research hasnt been done' I was not critisising anyone, certainly not David, just stating fact, I think the red cigerette case illustrates that pritty well.
Anyway I'm off early today to do some banking and have a long bank holiday. Enjoy yourself.
Big it large...Jeff |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 840
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Cheers, Jeff--then you find it and show it to us. Until you do, it doesn't exist for me. If it turns up in something like the Whitby Gazette, you'll also need to explain why a forger would look for an obscure quote in an obscure source in the first place. If the diary is old--how would someone go about accessing these provincial newspapers? How would they even know where to look (they wouldn't, they'd have to perform a broad search among many papers across the country). If we're talking about someone working in the 1920s or 1930s, were these papers even microfilmed then, or were they stacked in storage somewhere so that a hoaxer would have had to pour over physical pages? Imagine the search--coast to coast. The obscure line from the inventory wouldn't appear in any index.
Think about the work involved with that, for one line.
Dave
PS No offense taken--transcribing articles is hardly what I'd call work. It's relaxing and a good way to pick up the odd bit. So no worries--have a good holiday. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
i didn't say you din't know anything!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
"So since we all agree tin mach box empty at least proves the diary is a hoax, "
Hoax, yes. We've never been arguing about that - the important question is whether or not the phrase gives us proof of a modern hoax.
We can point to newspapers like The Times and The Star that gave detailed descriptions of
Eddowes' possessions which must have come from somewhere, from which we can reasonably wonder if a newspaper somewhere reported the empty tin matchbox. We can ask if the inventory could have been supplied to the press - the press obviously got its information from somewhere; the lists printed are pretty detailed.
Wouldn't it be funny ha ha if the newspaper turned out to be the Liverpool Echo or some equivalent thereof ?
The fact still remains that only a very small percentage of contemporary newspapers have been checked.
There is also the yet unanswered question as to whether or not a copy of the inventory resided in the City police files, or at the Met, or at the Yard. If the inventory of Eddowes’ possessions was made by the police and a copy was supplied to the coroner and later appended to the inquest papers, the police would have had a copy in their own files and this would have been subject to the rules governing the City Police files not the coroner’s.
And the City Police could have supplied the list to the Metropolitan Police and maybe even to divisional and provincial forces, especially in the immediate aftermath of the murder when they were trying to identify the body and the physical description as well as the description of her clothes and so on might have been useful in the event that someone reported a missing person.
Not to mention as I've said before the inventory is not just a sad collection of a poor woman's junk, but things possibly left behind by the Ripper.
Notions that the police made one single copy, sent it to the coroner's office, and from there it was sealed like King Tut's Tomb until the 1980s are certainly possible, but I think fail to jibe with common sense.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 907
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Jeff
I except that the modern Hoax is the most likely diary senario.
Well, I think we'd better leave it there. There are very few things one can have absolute certainty of in this world, and the Maybrick diary isn't one of them.
All I've ever argued is that these alternative hypotheses that would allow it to predate the 1980s are mind-bogglingly unlikely.
Life's too short.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Robert,
you know i just like to say these things aloud every now and again just to be sure.
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on April 29, 2005)
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Dave
I realize that its like looking for a needle in a hay stack...
Unfortunately I dont have the time to start searching for the quote. I was just pointing out we dont know for sure.
If I was to start a search Hypothetically..wouldnt Wolverhampton be a good place? thats where Eddows family came from so journalists might have taken more interest?
Just a thought..I'm Off..
Jeff
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Jenni you miss understood me
I know I know nothing...is a quote from some old Greek geezer...Aristotle or someone...te he..
now I'm off honest Jeff |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 841
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Exactly right--a needle in a haystack and that's what a hoaxer searching the newspapers would be looking for. I guess Wolverhampton's as good a place as any for you to start searching, although at the time these items were published, Eddowes hadn't been identified yet so I don't see that the press in Wolverhampton would have taken a special interest those first couple of days in October. Just a guess, but you've got to start somewhere.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with ink. Apologies for going off topic. Best of luck with your search, Jeff, if you decide to take it up.
Dave |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 2:44 am: |
|
hello CHris
Another post of mine should be appearing/have appeared re:the concentration value which was being bandied about the boards last year. I have no idea where it originally came from. Caroline Anne Morris may know more about it.
Im scratching my head as I write this!
Assuming that the Harris tests used GC and all indications are that they did, they cannot identify the compound with certainty because......I have explained before. I am at a loss to explain why they are so absolutely certain they have identified it given the method. Maybe they had information or used methods not given in the Harris document.
Regarding the levels. If they are so low, so hard to measure, then I have two questions:
Why prepare a dilution (in the lab) and make life even harder? The dilution is often made not to dilute but to bring up to a known volume, but if the levels are so low then that dilution should be minimised.
When the compound is present in the environment(cosmetics etc etc.) then measurement is more difficult because there can be a background signal. The level here is so low that it must be viewed cautiously especially when you consider that the chemical appears to occur in a lot of different products..
I think I'll have a few more:
Why is there no uncertainty quoted in the result? Its standard practice especially when the levels are low.
And I still have to say that I have never seen a balance that can measure down to a millionth of a gram. A tenth of a milligram, maybe even a hundreth of a milligram but Ive never seen them go down to a millionth of a gram.
Now I am sure this was all thrashed out years ago but I cannot find all those threads. The Mr Kazlauciunas man works at Leeds I would imagine.
I would rather not discuss individuals as its not a fair thing to do so I have tried to keep this thread to a discussion of the analytical methods in general.
BUt the constant refrain of "very small amounts" is enough to set alarm bells ringing in my head.
And I disagree with AAD. The amount is most ceratinly not irrelevant. Because......
measurements are based on quantifying a signal superimposed on a background. That backgroud signal varies, up and down due to the random component of noise. The detection limit of a technique is often fundamentally stated or derived from the concept that the analytical signal must be a certain number of times the standard deviation of teh blank or background signal. Depending on the certainty required, it can be 3 or 5 or others. Thats the signal required to even say the analyte was detected. To quantify it, there is a limit of quantification that must be exceeded and now we have moved up another level.
So I just try and contextualise 6.5 ppm. I dont know if its in dry ink, or wet ink or what. I dont know where it came from. I have only discussed it as presented. And accroding my contextualising in my head, 6.5 ppm is beginning to smell a little badly to me. But dont take my word for it. Run through the calculations yourself as I might have been wrong. But even if I was out by two orders of magnitude, given the generous assumptions I made, that stink will not go away.
They state themselves that 1.4 ng could be detected. I assume thats the DL, at least thats how Melvin presents it . They only had 0.000583 grams of material. 90% was paper. so that leaves 0.0000583 g of ink. If 6.5 ppm was in wet ink and the residue is 2% of that, there were about (ca., approx.) 400 ppm in the residue. A mass of 0.0000583 with a conce. of 400 ppm is getting down towards the DL. And as I said, Ive been generous. If the 6.5 ppm refers to the dried ink and they did not extract all the dots together and a host of otehr things, the figure of 6.5 ppm really gets a little weird.
mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
Hello
With reference to our report, there was no question of contamination as between each determination 'blank' determinations of solvent were run; a different detector was used, and calibrations were performed at the nanogram level.
And...............? Please can people stop quoting the "nanogram level". A nanogram/ml is the same as a part per billion if Im not mistaken. Its hardly breaking the boundaries of analytical science (actually its a fairly routine concentration) so please stop mentioning it as impressed I will not be.
Have I not shown that the blank chromatogram contains a signal? Who says the acetone itself cannot be contaminated with something (again: not necessarily chloroacetamide, just something witha similar RT). You can change all the instruments you want but if the bottle of acetone is contaminated........
"A different detector was used"...now this is interesting so here we go. In GC the detector is a unit that sits on the end of the column detecting compunds as they come off. They are things like Electron Capture Detectors, Flame Ionisation Detectors etc etc. They are not disposable things, they are fastened in with bolts. Why change the detector for each sample? maybe they use one Ive never heard of. But why change it for every sample if there is no chance of contamination? Maybe they mean the column was changed? Maybe the instrument itself? A little unclear.
Doesnt matter. Again I will say (and its getting a bit boring): the fundamentals of analytical chemistry declare that GC alone cannot identify compounds with certainty. Maybe they had a GC-MS and didnt mention it.
Im sure their procedures were fine. But thats like saying "I can ride a bike (I have a good procedure) ergo I can never crash (get a strange result)". Its just...............ridiculous?
Frank Skuse and the Birmingham Six.
Anyway, Ive never said whether the results were wrong or right. Just pointed out the weaknesses. And I doubt Im the first one to do it.
But I'm going to try and finish this off:
Imagine you are a public prosecutor. You have just convicted some poor sod to a 10 stretch or the chiar on the basis of that test. As he's been dragged out of the court, which of the statements are you going to keep saying to convince yourself the test was reliable? And pick your meaningless buzzword carefully as its the one you'll be using to try and get a nights sleep:
"nanogram levels" ?
"changed detector" ?
"recalibrated" ?
"blank determinations" ?
Not being melodramatic but thats the way it is.
But theres no point trying to convince each other whether that test was right or wrong by posting up quotes from reports etc. etc. Becuase they can all just be countered with the one or two statements like "GC alone cannot identify .....". And it doesnt matter what is said or who thinks they can. Its a fact of life, as immutable as.......an immutable thing?
Plus, the same dissection could be done to the Leeds tests if the report was on the Casebook. But as Ive said, its much harder to pick holes in a situation where the compound was not detected.
Its something to think about though. And things to avoid in the future.
Its justa shame Melvin Harris didnt take that report and file it under "its a pity that proved nothing definite" where it belonged.
Mr Poster
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 2:55 am: |
|
Heelo Chris
According to these threads, the 6.5 ppm refers to conecntartion in ink (my previous posts clarify why this is a little tenuous(.
IF 0.25% of what is exxpected is present that isnt a 0.25% dilution. A 1:100 dilution gives 1% of the original concentration, a 1:400 dilution gives 0.25% of teh original concentration. If they reported 6.5 ppm for the ink, they must have allowed for any dilution in their caluclations. 6.5 ppm in their extract is possible, but they dont seem to refer to the extract according to Carolines information posted around the threads.
Im not sure but diluting ink even by 100 would surely render it useless for writing?
And before someone mentions that chloroacetamide is degraded by heat etc., mention that to the chemists that do the new tests so they can also test for the degradation products which must be published somewhere.
ON a different note. I am not an expert in chloroacetamide chemistry, never have been, never will be, never claimed to be. But from what I have heard, one of the major concerns regarding the stuff in the environment is that it is very water soluble (a polar compound). Maybe acetone was not the best thing to extract with. Maybe some other extractant would have been better? Maybe that is why we are getting no real positive results for chloroacetamide? Because it is not being extracted. Did Leeds use acetone as well?
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 3:17 am: |
|
Hello Chris
Sorry for all the posts but I am in and out of my office:
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? "
This is irrelevant in terms of defense. What you say assumes reproducible injection. I explain in my other posts that this is not demonstrated in the analysis results nor is there any mention of how the possibility of non-reproducibility was corrected for. Depending on about 50 different parameters, the amount of sample to hit the column can and does vary, hence the size of a peak can vary depending on the injection technique and what happens between injection and the sample plug hitting the column. Internal standards would have cleared that doubt right up but I see no evidence they were used. The presence of signal in the blank is alone sufficient reason for substantial doubts. As I have posted before, the blank should have no signal at the area of interest. Also because the fundamental parameters are not written down, you or I have no guarantee that the blank was run at the same conditions of the samples. I have seen sitautions where a blank was run with the chart recorder at a sensitivity of X (ie X displacement per mV) and the sample was run. The analyst could see nothing in the sample so upped the sensitivity of the chart rec. by 10 to take a closer look. He found a peak, subtrracted the blank signal and reported the result. In all his excitment at having found something he foregot that th eblank contribution was now 10 times to small.
Anyway, picture this. The analyst pours out 10 mls of acetone into a beaker with the dots. He lets it soak for 30 minutes on the bench. Over that 30 minutes, 50% or so of the acetone evaporates (buy some, try it, it happens). Thats OK. Its expected. Now he opens the bottle of acetone and injects 100 microliters of acetone as a blank. The signal for the blank represents a concentration in the acetone of X ppm . He now injects 100 microliters of the acetone that extracted the dots. Because its been sitting on the bench, its concentration of X is two times higher than the blank.
It is for these reasons that blank signals are just not acceptable. And I'm not even trained in demolishing analysis results. But in this case its not so hard.
The point is that there is not enough info to establish confidence in the analysis Melvin H. has been using as evidence.
But good points all the same.
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 2:12 am: |
|
Hello Chris
The point is not the size of the signal - its that its there. If you read my posts you will see that that is the probelm when it comes to reliability.
I agree. It is important to discuss previous threads and statements. And Im going to start with this one.
They were made in a thread active around 20th January last year in posts made by Sgt. John Hacker and Chief Inspector Caroline Anne Morris.
"Analysis for Industry ran a series of tests using a sample of pure Chloracetamide to obtain a benchmark against which they could test the ink. The ink was run through, a showed a positive result (a "peak") for Chloracetamaide."
This is not true. The ink was not run through. An extract of the ink was analysed. The ink extract gave a signal in the same region as would be expected for choloroacetamide. Given the poor resolution of the peak (its actually two peaks, maybe more), the fact that GC cannot identify compounds with certainty, all that can be said is that the sample had a compound (or many unresolved compounds) in it that had a similar RT to the standard. The blank also displayed a signal at the same RT. Which form of the compound was used as the standard? There are two, maybe more, available which while chloroacetamides are different in their properties.
"When additional Chloracetamaide was added to that solution, the height of the peak increased, further confirming it's presence."
This is not true. GC analysis alone cannot confirm the presence of chloroacetamide. Especially given the poor resolution. Especially given the presence of a relevant signal in the blank.A peak did rise but you have no proof that the peak in the sample was from chloroacetamide. The peak in the sample may have been anything but the resolution is so poor that the chloroacetamide peak is just swamping it.
"Blank samples were processed between each test to insure that there was no possibility of contamination."
This is not true. Blank samples were run to check for contamination. They do not ensure there is no possibility of contamination. The blank chromatogram displayed in the report available on these pages displays a relevant signal at the relevant RT.This signal is unresolved, making it more suspect.The doublet is also carried over to other chromatograms.It would be interesting to see any other blanks.
"Unsatisfied with these results, Shirley Harrison had some samples tested at Leeds university which found Chloracetamide. For some reason that has never been explained, they ran a retest and didn't find any. Again, for some reason that has never been explained Leeds university decided that the original test was the one in error. "
THis is not true. Leeds could not say they found chloroacetamide any more that Harris's tests could. Unless they were using something that was not GC. Maybe GC/MS. Assuming GC the most they could say with certaintyis that the blank had a signal in the relevant region that possibly indicated contamination. It would be difficult to say with certainty that that contamination was even chloroacetamide for the same reason as above. The retest was run presumably because they found contamination (a signal in the blank at or near the RT of interest, a bit like the Blank Chromatogram A in the Harris analysis). It is standard practice that if the blank yields a peak anywhere, the analysis is checked, the column is cleaned, the analysis setup is checked, whatever until the blank does not yield a signal. Then the sample is analysed. This analysis after the perfectly correct checking yielded no signal for the sample. I would expect nothing less from an anlyst than to check carefully if a signal is observed in a blank. Read my other posts on defensible GC analysis. If they did use GC/MS in Leeds then we have no real choice but to view their analysis as the most credible.
"I think a better question is why did they run a second, unasked for test? Clearly they had some concerns about the quality of their equipment and/or methodology. Without clarification from Leeds as to what the heck went wrong, there is no clear way to determine what's up. We do know without a doubt though, that they botched one of the two tests because they are mutually exclusive results. These tests have never been adequately documented and should be treated with UTMOST caution in my opinion. "
This is not true and is a little unfair. On the contrary. This is what responsible labs do. It shows they knew exactly what they were doing, were familiar with what they were doing and had confidence in it. They didnt botch anything........botching it would have been to say straight away that there was chloroacetamide in the sample without ensuring that there was no contamination from background chloroacetamide present in cosmetics, nail polish, a 1000 other substances, etc or contamination from any of a thousand compounds that may produce an interfering signal. With due respect, as a chemist, based on the information to hand (or not) about the Harris test, and knowing nothing else, Leeds may be more defensible simply because (and I have been saving this one up):
GC cannot identify compounds on its own. That is accepted fact and is drummed into every first year Analytical Chemistry student.
But, GC is much cleverer at proving the abscence of a compound and it is much easier to defend abscence based on GC than presence based on GC.
And it doesnt even take a chemist to understand why. There are a thousand different reasons why a GC can give a false positive. Ive explained some of them. Ranging from instrumental factors, to laboratory contamination, to electrical noise in the mains supply, to reagent quality,to bad injection technique, to a faulty thermometer, to leaky septums, to the fact that the analyst didnt feel so good that day, ad nauseum. All can be countered but that is why GC cannot identify a compund and hence confirm its presence with certainty.Apart from the fact that it is physically impossible for GC to identify compounds on its own.
But if you inject a standard, and its separated under the conditions you are using, and gives a signal and under the exact same conditions you inject a sample and no relevant signal is given, THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE FOR THE COMPOUND TO GO. There are no conditions that can hide it, it cannot dissapear. If there is no signal at or near the RT of interest as produced by the standard, then the concentration in the sample is less than that of the blank which we must assume to be zero.
If you run a sample and it gives a signal. And then you run it again under the same conditions and it gives none, the question is not "where did it go", the question is "what the hell was the signal in the first one". The subsequent inquiry will typically not focus on why there is none in the second (beyond checking that the power did not go off or a fuse blew), it will focus on why there was a signal in the first run.
You could inject the standard, get an RT, inject a sample and get a peak with different RT, so then you inject another standard and if it has the same RT as the first, the sample had no compound.
But it would have been nice if they had said "less than detection limit" as that is more correct than "0"
And thats a fact of chemistry. If not life.
"However as the record stands now 3 out of 4 tests have found the presence of the chemical. Personally, I find it highly unlikely that 3 tests out of 4 were incorrect (Especially after going through the results and methodology of the AFI tests which are well documented.), but others are certainly entitled to their opinion. "
This is not true. None of the tests run so far can attest with certainty to having found chloroacetamide in the samples.Nor are the AFI tests well documented in the report provided in Melvin H.'s dissertation. Maybe other reports exist but I doubt they can contribute significantly to the defensibility. In fact the most important information is missing - the test parameters that I have described as should be given in previous posts and are usually written on the chromatogram itself or printed out on a computerised one. Personally I find it very plausible that the three tests detected background contamination from cosmetics or the many other sources of the chemical or even contamination that wasnt chloroacetamide and were just chemicals that gave an interfering signal. None of the tests can be certain. As I have explained, GC alone cannot identify chemicals with certainty so you cannot say it was found.
And at the risk of gilding the lily, the IUPAC definition, and one which all chemists must accept as they "govern" chemistry, of chromatography is: "Chromatography is a physical method of SEPARATION in which the components to be separated are distributed between two phases, one of which is stationary while the other moves in a definite direction" (Pure and Applied Chemistry, Vol. 65, No. 4.pp. 819-872, 1993.). It is a separatory procedure. Not an identification procedure. Its not a chemical test. Its a physical method of separation that happens to be used by chemists.
"Additionally the paper sent for the second control (The blank diary paper) actually produced more peaks in the test than the original ink + paper combination which is fairly odd."
Many chemists would not agree its odd.
"What I mean is exactly what was said. :-) The test used was Thin Layer Chromatography. A solvent (acetone in this case) is used to extract substances from the sample being tested and it's fed into the machine. The machine will draw peaks on a piece of paper representing different chemical compounds. Based on where these peaks occur and how high they are it is possible to determine what these chemicals are, and how much is present in the solution being tested."
As my final year chemistry lecturer used to say "Oh God, My Eyes, My Eyes!!" :-) It wasnt TLC, TLC (Thin Layer Chromatography) doesnt have "machines", its usually a glass slide and a jar with a lid; a GC is an instrument, a man with a shovel is a "machine"; instruments are not "fed", the sample is introduced; the "machine" draws nothing,it produces voltages which are read by a chart recorder which traces peaks that are representative of the voltages; the rest is just,...... I repeat: GC alone cannot identify compounds. It can support identification, it can possibly suggest groups of candidate compounds but it cannot identify them alone.
And I have done some back of the envelope calculations on this ink concentartion. Some assumptions were made but they are made in favour of a presence of the compound. As a mathematician Chris you could do me the favour of checking them as I am literally doing them on an envelope and teher are a lot of zeros. But first some questions:
"Regarding the original tests of ink + paper dots, Dr. Simpson reported to us that ‘The results obtained were based on analysis of one or two ink “full stops” and represented 6.5 parts per million of chloroacetamide in the ink’. "
Now I am not quibbling that 6.5 ppm was reported as the quantity described above. But heres some questions:
6.5 ppm implies knowledge of the actual mass of ink. How was this mass measured? If the paper was weighed after extraction, how was it ensured that the acetone completly extracted all the ink residue and not just the coloured components?
Sartorius are perhaps the biggest manufacturers of laboratory balances (not "scales") in the world. So if you go to their website and go to their "ultramicro" range of balances you will find their premium model is SE2-OCE Ultra micro balance. And this can weigh down to 0.1 mg. Now, the mass of all the paper dots reported in Melvin Harris's tests was 0.000583 g or 0.583 mg. And that was six dots of paper. So on average, the mass of the dots was 0.0971 mg. And the report in Melvin H.'s dissertation estimates, fairly enough, that the paper probably constitutes 90% of each dot so the ink on each dot must weigh at most of the order of 0.00971 mg. Two orders of magnitude less than the most sensitive balance commonly available for laboratory use 10 years later.
Indeed the balnace I have in the lab reads to four decimals after the 0 (ie the zero reading is 0.0000 grams). To do this it needs a marble plinth, a closed off lab, temperature control. Th evalue given in the report is 0.000583 g. I cannot find a balance for general sale that reads to the sixth decimal. I am sure they exist but the best I can find is to the fifth. I could be wrong.
Anyway,forget that and lets assume that the method used all six dots at one go. According to the figures that means that at most 0.00971 mg of dry ink was presented for analysis.
NOw lets be generous and say that the 6.5 ppm value corresponds to liquid ink. From what I have read, the solid residue of the modern ink constitutes about 2% of the total mass of liquid ink. So if an amount of ink containing 6.5 ppm of chloroacetamide was dried, that 6.5 ppm would end up in the residue. So in effect that is a concentrating of the chloroacetamide concentration by 50 so the concentration in the dried ink residue was of the order of 325 ppm. And we have 0.0583 mg of dried ink in total. 1 millionth of a milligram is a nanogram. So for the assumption that there was 6.5 ppm of chloroacetamide in liquid ink (325 ppm in dried ink), that means that there was of the order of 18.9 nanograms of chloroacetamide present in the dried ink on the six dots (in total 6 dots, not each).
Now lets assume (and I am being generous here) that 1 ml of acetone was used to extract all the dots and it extracted everything - all the chloroacetamide. And 1 ml is a very small amount. At roon temperature 1 ml of acetone will have evaporated in approximately 10 minutes. That means that the 1 ml contained all the acetamide from the six dots. And lets assume that that 0.1 ml was injected onto the GC in its entirety. In real life, the usual volume is less. If you want to check that, go to www.hamiltoncomp.com and see what they offer in syringe volumes.
That means 1/10th of the 1 ml extractant was injected. That means that 1/10th of the chloroacetamide was injected. Assuming no loss through back flow out through the septum, that means 1.89 ng of chloroacetamide was injected onto the column. And the Harris report says that the method could detect (he does not say quantify) 1.45 ng. Now I could be wrong in the above but people can check. And even if I am, all my previous posts re: defensibility still stand.
So now we are at the detection limit. And I have assumed the maximum concentrations in all cases:
a small amount of acetone extractant,
that all six dots were extracted together,
that the quoted 6.5 ppm refers to liquid ink (if it referred to dry ink then the figures are even more incredible),
that 100% extraction occurred,
that no loss was made on injection,
that the dried ink constituted 10% of the sample mass.
And yet we have a reliable concentration quoted. And I am not going to repeat all the stuff about the blank signal, the poor resolution, the bad baseline etc. etc.
A bogeyman of GC is varying injection technique.I will explain. A syringe is used to suck up some sample or standard and the needle is inserted into a rubber septum. On the other side of the septum is a heated chamber at a temperature higher than the boiling point s of all the compounds of interest. The idea is now to get a tight band of sample vapour onto the column. This is achieved by a smooth injection, th esample is flash vapourised and swept onto the column by the carrier gas. The problem is that once the needle enters the septum any liquid in the needle is vapourised first and enters the column before the main plug of sample is vapourised. PLus, from injection to injection, the smoothness varies with shakes in the analysts hand etc. So from injection to injection different amounts of material enter the column and this affects quantitation. The width of th eband on the column also varies and this affects identification as peaks can be wider than expected (and the analyst must decide if it is now two unresolved peaks or just one wide one). To check for this normally an analyst makes 5 to 10 replicate injections to ensure they are able to inject reproducibly and this chromatogram of the 10 peaks is included. Alternatively to compensate for this, a technique known as Internal Standardisation is used. Or some GC's have an automatic injector. Did this one ? Was Internal Standardisation used?
Is the concentration quoted for dried (ie the residue) or wet ink? If its for wet ink, how was the water content of the ink measured or inferred to come back to the concentration reported as only a dry residue was available.
Its all quite interesting really. The treatment of the analysis results that have been done to date is equivalent to non-native English speakers discussing evidence that appeared in broad Cockney slang in the gossip column of a gutter press tabloid in 1910. Sugden wouldnt accept such evidence yet we have not critiqued the science at all.
Now I appreciate that the posts I have been making in recent days can sound condescending and I apologise but I genuinely have tried to keep the technical stuff to a minimum and leave it understandable. And I know they have been long but it would seem to me that an analysis of the sort Ripper world seems to demand was important.
In essence everything I have written will be backed up by any analytical chemist with experience with GC and GC/MS (its important to remember the distinction). Some fine detail has been lost as I have attempted to keep the technical talk at a minimum and I admit I have been hard.
If anyone has questions then just write up an email address and I will get in touch as I feel I have been hijacking this thread a little.
Mr Poster
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 6:21 am: |
|
Hello Chris P.
I have no idea where 6.5 ppm came from. But I read it somewhere. I CANNOT say and havent that it can direct from AFI. Oh wait, I found where I saw it: Posted by John Hacker, 19th Jan 2004:
"I have the results of the test that you are referring to, as well as the original AFI test, and what is being measured is the amount of chloracetamaide that was extracted via acetone, in the acetone solution. (Not the raw amount cloracetamaide in the ink.) Which would not account for the total content of chloracetamaide in the ink by quite a long shot. Chloracetamaide also breaks down under certain circumstances. For example, heat will do it nicely, so that's not necessarily that meaningful. If fact if we were to take the number that is being pushed for the total content of the ink were to be correct, we could rule out it's use as a preservative in the 1880s, because 6.5 ppm wouldn't preserve anything."
Note that he refers to it being "measured" which implies quantified. Then Caroline Anne Morris counters:
"Regarding the original tests of ink + paper dots, Dr. Simpson reported to us that ‘The results obtained were based on analysis of one or two ink “full stops” and represented 6.5 parts per million of chloroacetamide in the ink’."
And thats all I know.
But and heres something to think about:
If it wasnt quantified at AFI or an attempt made to quantify it, why calibrate quantitatively as they did? To "identify" or more correctly "to identify the possibility the sample may contain chloroacetamide or a compound with similar RT" all they had to do was run a chloroacetamide standard one time. No need for the calibration they did. Worth thinking about.
Its a real pity that probably AFI and Leeds are so cheesed off with whats been said about them and the way this was dealt with, that they may never help out again.
But if we do find labs to help out, they have to be warned of the potential exposure so they can bulletproof themselves!
Mr Poster} |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster--Isn't the answer rather simple? The ink tested by AFI was from the "full-stops" supplied directly from the diary by Robert Kurantz. The ink was extracted from the paper sample with the acetone. The quantatitive number (6.5 ppm) was given to conclusively distinguished it from the incidental amount detected during the blank run(1.45 ppm), afterwhich the apparatus was recalibrated. In other words, the vital test showed 6.5 ppm in the ink/acetone,ergo, this indicated a higher level of chloracetamide in the ink than could be accounted for by incidental contamination. This doesn't mean the 6.5 is a "quantative" number for what was actually in the dried ink, since acetone was used to extract ink from the Kurtantz' "full stops" which were approximately 90% paper anyway. If AFI didn't make some effor to quantify the amount, it would leave itself open to Mr. K's suggestion from Leeds that incidental contamination could explain it. The increase from 1.45, the recalibration, and the final result of 6.5 ppm seemingly disprove this suggestion. That's how I understand it. The 6.5 figure is quoted in a letter from AFI to Shirley Harrison.
Alhough I appreciate the gesture, the court-room analogy of the Birmingham Six, etc., isn't particularly apt here because we are not seeking the legal burden of proof,let alone seeking prosecution, but only testing historical probabilites; we can't be expected to tie our own hands, can we? The diary's owner has made it plain that he has no desire to file a report against Mr.Barrett (the only man who the AFI test would tend to implicate). It's always been a difficult tight-rope walk between testing a contested document, and implicating a living person. I'll grant you that. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Mr Poster
Thank you for your replies.
I feel we are trying to discuss a number of questions at once, and it may be helpful to try to separate them a little.
(1) Does the peak observed represent a real response to some substance present in the "ink extract" but not present in acetone, or could it be an artefact resulting from noise, the small peak in the same place you've observed in the blanks, the fact that there isn't a level baseline, variability in the quantity injected and so on?
(2) Could it represent something other than chloroacetamide, with a very similar retention time?
(3) Is the concentration unbelievable, given the stated concentration of chloroacetamide in Diamine ink?
On (1), frankly I just can't see how any of the mechanisms suggested can cause a peak like that as an artefact, though of course I'm quite willing to reconsider if you can suggest a specific mechanism which you think could explain it.
On (2), I take your point that it is only the retention time that is being measured. Another substance which partitioned between the two phases in the same proportions as chloroacetamide would exhibit the same retention time.
How hard would it be to look for other candidates? When I last did this sort of calculation it was still a matter of looking things up in huge books of data. Nowadays I presume there are databases of chemical properties ...?
On (3), I am still confused by where this 6.5 ppm figure came from. R. J. Palmer's post suggests that this phrase "The results obtained were based on analysis of one or two ink “full stops” and represented 6.5 parts per million of chloroacetamide in the ink" came from a letter from Dr Simpson to Shirley Harrison.
R. J. suggests this figure was given to distinguish it from 1.45 ppm in a "blank run". But the report shows a calibration run produced by 1.45 "nanograms of chloroacetamide" (chromatogram B). As I read the report, it seems natural to interpret this as 1.45 ng/ml (though that's not explicitly stated). But as Mr Poster points out, that would be parts per billion, not parts per million. Also, the "ink extract" run seems to show a rather lower response than the 1.45 ng run, not a response 4 times as big.
I think it would be nice to clarify what exactly is said in this letter (it's not the letter that's reproduced in the appendix to Melvin Harris's dissertation).
However, on the whole I do feel point (3) is a bit of side issue. In the report itself, no attempt is made to estimate the chloroacetamide concentration, either in the extract or in the ink itself. To evaluate either the validity of any such estimate, or its plausibility in terms of the known composition of Diamine ink, we'd need a lot more information than we currently have.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
It would be interesting to have more details of the Leeds tests - especially considering the contradictory results and the setting aside of the first ones.
One other point that emerged from the old discussions on the CD was that the Leeds tests concluded that there was no sodium in the samples, whereas Eastaugh's tests had previously found sodium.
Another more depressing point is that all this discussion may be rather pointless. Even in the old days, Paul Begg and others were pointing out that chloroacetamide was discovered in the mid-19th century, so that its presence in the ink wouldn't be absolute proof that the diary was a modern hoax. However, Melvin Harris stated that it wasn't produced industrially until after the Second World War.
But I'll bet the reaction of the diehards to the confirmation of chloroacetamide in the ink would be, "So what?"
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
You asked:
Caz,
suppose the dairy is tested and it proves nothing.
What exactly has been lost?
Well, for starters, I think it’s unreasonable to expect anyone, including yourself, to spend a second of their time, a penny of their hard-earned income, or an ounce of effort on tests that have little or no chance of advancing the cause of actually dating the diary. I don’t know what the advantage would be, for example, of ascertaining beyond doubt that the ink does or does not contain the element sodium. We need qualified ink chemists to tell us what, if anything, the significance would be for dating. Ditto the compound chloroacetamide.
A good idea would certainly be to do as much background research as possible, into the known usage of certain elements or compounds in large and small-scale ink manufacture going back to 1888, before commissioning potentially very expensive tests to look for said substances in the diary ink, that will get us absolutely nowhere without that kind of research.
Hi Chris P,
…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.
Why simply copy the phrase down in such a way that - as soon as the first ripperologist pointed out that the four words appeared in the same order in the inventory published in Martin Fido’s book - many of the people who might otherwise have been fooled by a post-1987 hoax, and spent lots of money on books, are going to be 100% convinced that it must be exactly that.
This doesn’t make much sense either, and is only plausible if you have a modern suspect who is a total moron one minute, yet street-wise and artful the next, to the extent that we are all exactly like the diary’s chickens, running round with their heads cut off, unable to catch Jack, except in this case we are unable to identify the author, the irony of which would surely have appealed no end to the diarist’s ‘Sir Jim’.
And no one in 13 years has given a practical demonstration of how easy and quick it would be to hoax a similar document, or how much luck or skill would be needed for it not to be exposed almost immediately, as the Hitler diaries were.
Isn't it obvious that it's intrinsically impossible to prove that the phrase came from Fido's book, in the sense you are expecting? That kind of proof is rarely possible in any field except mathematics.
Well, I suppose if the science really could date the document reliably, and the verdict is post-1987, I don’t think anyone would give you a hard time over whether or not the phrase came from Fido’s book. Perhaps that’s why many people have suggested that the diary can only finally be put to bed once new tests have confirmed the ultimately subjective and less than watertight textual arguments.
Hi RJ,
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.
So in other words, this test was commissioned, having first presumed the ink to be modern (is that good science?), and the positive result is therefore claimed to be good enough to show that Diamine must have been used, because Diamine’s chemist (yes - Alec Voller - the same chemist who was certain the ink was neither Diamine nor modern when he saw the diary a year after the AFI test) stated that no other recent ink had used nigrosine and chloroacetamide.
So whatever the commission was meant to test, it has failed to confirm in any meaningful, objective, scientific way, the theory that Mike ‘was correct about the brand of ink he bought’ (which in itself is misleading and circular, because he only claimed he bought the diary ink, and claimed he got it from the Bluecoat shop, but didn’t actually name it as Diamine - someone else worked out that it must have been if his claims were true), because of a) the highly unscientific presumption of modernity; b) the fact that nigrosine and chloroacetamide were both around in the 1880s; c) all the concerns expressed by Mr Poster regarding the identification process, not least why Leeds didn’t detect any chloroacetamide second time around, if it was doing its job preserving the dried ink scraped directly from the diary, in the proportion expected from pre-1992 Diamine; and d) the conflicting opinion of Mr Diamine himself, who failed to recognise any of the tell-tale signs in the diary writing that should have allowed him to support Melvin’s theory, not undermine it.
On to the maroon diary:
Yes, I know that ‘on or around March 9th 1992’, for Mike’s telephoned order is an estimate based on how long it may have taken to find such an item. But ‘around’ can mean before or after, and I don’t see how either option helps support your ‘enormous’ suspicion about the order itself. Why do you think he would have ordered a book to use for his hoax (giving his real name and address) and then called Doreen about it, before he had any idea if and when his order was likely to be fulfilled? That’s no more logical (and yes, I know you’re talking about Mike, but you can’t make the lack of logic in your theory a reason why I should find it any more convincing) - it’s no more logical than suggesting he called Doreen first to test the waters, and her interest made him place a serious order.
And yes, I am suggesting the maroon diary came before the scrapbook.
You seriously believe that when the tiny 1891 diary arrived, a day or two after March 26th, and turned out to be unsuitable, Mike - or Anne - succeeded in locating the Victorian guard book, containing enough blank pages to transfer the previously composed text? That the whole thing was written out, in a handwriting that wasn’t obviously disguised but would also prove impossible to identify over the ensuing 13 years, with not a single obvious transcription error or sign that the writer was not at home using pen and ink? That all this was accomplished in 16 days, between rejecting the maroon diary and bringing the scrapbook to London on April 13th? And you believe that Dr Eastaugh, despite what he suggested to the contrary, and everyone else who examined the document between the summer of 1992 and the spring of 1997, would have been unable to demonstrate that the ink had gone on the paper as recently as early April 1992?
Have you asked Keith to find out if Mike gave Doreen a physical description of his diary when he spoke to her before March 26th? This would help make or break your theory, if Mike refused to give any specific details, or if he perfectly described the very scrapbook that we know and love.
Incidentally, I can’t believe you quoted Martin thus, writing about Anne:
‘…an enormous amount of unwanted pubic [sic] attention.…’
I swear some typos have a life of their own and there’s no doing anything about it… 
This doesn't mean the 6.5 is a "quantative" number for what was actually in the dried ink, since acetone was used to extract ink from the Kurtantz' "full stops" which were approximately 90% paper anyway.
Since I am still confused by this, and Chris is confused over where the following quote came from:
"The results obtained were based on analysis of one or two ink “full stops” and represented 6.5 parts per million of chloroacetamide in the ink",
I hope the following passage from Ripper Diary, page 215, will clarify matters, and that Mr Poster will be able to shed some light for us all:
In March 2003, the authors wrote to Diana Simpson: ‘Just to confirm, our understanding is that you examined ink samples from the Diary for the presence of chloroacetamide and gave Shirley Harrison a figure of 6.5 parts per million. (In 1996 you examined paper samples taken from the Diary and found no chloroacetamide). Would you be able to clarify for us exactly what the figure of 6.5 represents? Crucially, we need to know if this figure can help confirm or deny the possibility that the ink you examined is pre-1992 liquid Diamine, which is known to contain 0.26 per cent chloroacetamide, ie: 2,600 parts per million’. Dr Simpson’s reply was brief and to the point. ‘The results obtained were based on analysis of one or two ink “full stops” and represented 6.5 parts per million of chloroacetamide in the ink. The paper samples did not contain any chloroacetamide because they were blank and, hence, contained no ink.’
Now then, in order for this ppm figure to be of any use to us whatsoever, surely it should have been made clear if it related not to the proportion of chloroacetamide in the ink alone, as the letter appears to me to imply, but in the whole ink/paper/acetone mixture - in which case any meaningful comparison with Diamine would have been impossible for us to make.
Another concern I have is that, while I accept the 1996 finding: no chloroacetamide was found in the paper, the limit of detection being 0.8 part per million, I find it slightly odd that Dr Simpson didn’t say, in her letter, that the blank paper samples tested in 1996 did not contain any chloroacetamide because none was found, from which she concluded that what was found back in 1994 must have come from the ink alone, but because ‘they were blank and, hence, contained no ink’. Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? How could she have presumed, without the negative paper result already in front of her, that no ink = no chloroacetamide? If she already knew it had come from the ink, and just the ink, in 1994, why did she need to test the blank paper in 1996?
Apologies for the horrendously long post, but it took me a horrendously long time to read through the latest messages and to prepare as full a response as I consider they deserve.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2297
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
I did not mean testing for things that wouldn't help.
I guess we all agree in principle, more testing is good. tests might be able to tell us something. If we don't give tests that have not previously been done a could help a chance then what is the point of us even being here?
That is why I am glad things are moving in a positive direction.
More research and more tests, that is probably the best plan.
I can't wait until the summer when i will have more time to do things!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 917
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
This doesn’t make much sense either, and is only plausible if you have a modern suspect who is a total moron one minute, yet street-wise and artful the next ...
Hmmm - who does that sound like?
But seriously, the point is whether the diarist was sophisticated or stupid.
This idea that he/she could have found a second document or a published transcript that has eluded all other researchers, implies a sophisticated and tenacious diarist (or else one of those astounding coincidences that seem to crop up so frequently when the diary is being discussed).
The internal evidence of the diarist, though, suggests someone whose spelling and grammar you would no doubt criticise mercilessly if they posted on the Casebook (though only if they happened to disagree with you).
Who knows - perhaps the diarist was even too stupid to realise that the Eddowes inventory wasn't public knowledge at the time of the murders, and didn't know what a giveaway the quotation was!
Sorry to be brief with the rest of my comments, but I really don't have time for a lot of this at the moment.
Well, I suppose if the science really could date the document reliably, and the verdict is post-1987, I don’t think anyone would give you a hard time over whether or not the phrase came from Fido’s book.
The point is that science can't prove anything absolutely any more than the textual arguments can. That's why I said "except mathematics".
the same chemist who was certain the ink was neither Diamine nor modern when he saw the diary a year after the AFI test
If you're going to keep raising this I really think you should tell us how he could be certain. And for that matter, whether he's still certain today.
the fact that nigrosine and chloroacetamide were both around in the 1880s
But you must know that Melvin harris states that chloroacetamide wasn't produced in industrial quantities until after the Second World War.
You may not believe it - you may even have evidence to the contrary. But to pretend that claim wasn't made is misleading.
Now then, in order for this ppm figure to be of any use to us whatsoever, surely it should have been made clear if it related not to the proportion of chloroacetamide in the ink alone, as the letter appears to me to imply, but in the whole ink/paper/acetone mixture - in which case any meaningful comparison with Diamine would have been impossible for us to make.
Thank you for clarifying that the sentence came from a letter to the authors of Ripper Diary, not to Shirley Harrison.
My feeling is much as before. If this is really an estimate of concentration in the ink, I should like to see the calculation.
If she already knew it had come from the ink, and just the ink, in 1994, why did she need to test the blank paper in 1996?
Surely you know the answer to this already. Even from my cursory reading of a few old posts yesterday, I know that one of the criticisms originally made by the pro-Diary camp was that Simpson hadn't tested the paper alone (because she hadn't been given access to the paper alone, according to Melvin Harris). That must be why the paper was later retested.
Chris Phillips
|
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 2:37 am: |
|
Hello David O Flaherty
Imagine the search--coast to coast. The obscure line from the inventory wouldn't appear in any index.
The diary is a sloppy hoax. If its an old sloppy hoax why would the hoaxer search for that line? Its more probable he found it an newspaper or whatvever and just said "I'll use that". The same as he probably just used the wrong information about MJK's body parts. These lines only are significant because we made them so. The hoaxer probably didnt give them a second thought and just used bits and pieces he had to hand.
Lars |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Hello, Lars
Okay. What newspaper is it in? Maybe you can find it. No one else has.
Until then,
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 920
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Lars
The hoaxer probably didnt give them a second thought and just used bits and pieces he had to hand.
And isn't is so much more likely he would have had this phrase to hand if it had been recently published in a book on the Ripper, rather than if it had appeared only in a Victorian provincial newspaper that no one else has ever found?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:15 pm: |
|
"What newspaper is it in? Maybe you can find it. No one else has."
Dave - has the Liverpool Echo been scanned or sorted out in any searchable fashion?
And no, I'm not dropping things to help dig if it's not! It'd be a "interesting" place to look, though.
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.
|
|
|
|
