|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 2:02 pm: | 
|
Hi Jenni,
i don't know how much brains Mike Barrett has (i dont know if i care)
i dont think whoever wrote the dairy needed brains, and hell theyve got away with it, so it didnt matter in the end!
Well, let’s put it this way. We may think the diarist was/is semi-literate, but ‘Sir Jim’ would have got into university these days, while Mike Barrett would still be mixing up his upper and lower cases mId-SEntaNse oR eveN MiD-WoRd.
i dont like the idea of being out smarted by Mike Barrett
You will never be outsmarted as long as you remain healthily sceptical about Mike’s proud boast that he was the world’s greatest forger. A clue might be in the claim itself - if Mike could only dream of writing something as well as he considered the diary to be written, it’s easy to see why he thought the world would be so impressed with ‘his’ creation.
The diary author could have been writing at his/her literate best, or dumbing down for the occasion. But whatever the opposite of dumbing down is (smartening up?), it can’t be done - not without help. And if Mike has ever written anything that reaches the diarist’s standard, it has yet to come to light.
but also i find there to be several other likely suspects connected to Mike. In this sense maybe he does hold the key.
But if these likely suspects were originally brought into the picture by Mike, or via one or more of his claims, beware, because there are many more ways than one of being outsmarted by Mike.
Hi Jeff,
My question would be how little time would a hoaxer have needed, from conception to handing over the finished product? The claim (originating from a claim Mike once made) is that the Crashaw line was lifted from a book obtained sometime after April 1989. The claim is that a hoaxer (possibly Mike) used Martin Fido’s 1987 book for his ‘tin match box empty’ try-out line (by omitting the 1, changing it all to lower case, correcting Martin’s un-Victorian ‘MatchBox’ error, and finally omitting the comma).
How long would a hoaxer have needed to give the writing to dry and settle on the paper before letting the experts analyse it? If Nick Eastaugh’s estimation was about right, they would need to wait 3-5 years to be reasonably confident of not falling at the first forensic hurdle, which was approached in the summer of 1992.
If the diary hadn’t been done and dusted by mid-1989 at the very latest, or ideally by mid-1987, then according to Eastaugh, its modernity could have been exposed.
Coincidentally, Keith Skinner tells me that he asked Martin Fido two weeks ago about his book being used for the diary and he still rejects the notion. But he still firmly believes that Anne was the brains behind it and that Mike physically wrote it, which he says accounts for the bad spelling. He thinks Mike’s handwriting would have altered over the years due to his health and so on, which he says would account for the diary handwriting not resembling Mike’s.
Martin is on record as saying that the diary is either a modern hoax or genuine.
So I wonder where on earth he thinks Anne could have found her 'tin match box empty', if she didn't adapt it from his own '1 Tin MatchBox, empty'?
Love,
Caz
X
PS I wonder if Voller is happy to be ignored. His expert evidence is that, in his professional opinion, the ink certainly didn't go on the paper in recent years - he believed it was 90+ years old in 1995.
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
"Keith Skinner tells me that he asked Martin Fido two weeks ago about his book being used for the diary and he still rejects the notion."
Any way to elaborate on this? I'd be curious as to why Fido still rejects this out of hand, and if he does have an opinion on the source. Neither his citation nor Rumbelow's is an exact match, nor for that matter the police report, but it's hardly an unreasonable assertion that it came from Fido.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Yes, Sir Robert.
I too noticed that Caroline has once again offered us no evidence and no explanation for how Martin would know such a thing or even why exactly he feels that way.
Apparently, just mentioning things around here replaces rational explanations and evidenced argument.
Of course, since just mentioning stuff without specific and detailed explanations is also the only way an old hoax theory can explain the many textual difficulties that a modern scenario easily explains, I do understand why some people find it an attractive methodology.
She also still steadfastly refuses to offer any other rational explanation for how the police list got into the diary.
I can only conclude from this that she has none.
Indeed, it is now crystal clear that no one has any evidenced, rational explanation for how an old hoaxer saw the police list.
All day long here we've been discussing it and not one single shred of evidence of any sort has ever been offered by you or by her or by anyone that would even suggest that the list was available to the general public before 1987.
We know for certain it was available after 1987, don't we? And we know for certain that it was used in the composition of the book, don't we? And we know that the relevant part of it appears in Martin's book separated and in boldface at the top of a page -- the match box line right there along with the other items also mentioned in the same page of the diary, don't we? And we know what else from the diary appears in Martin's book even in the very first ten pages, because I have already listed those things on the boards.
So once again a modern hoax scenario explains all the textual evidence simply and easily while an old hoax scenario is completely unable to explain any of it without desperately falling exclusively into praying that "maybe there's something we just don't know about."
I'm sure I'll be ignored once again for demonstrating how, despite all the posting here, that situation has not changed one little bit since the discussion began. That's fine. Ignore away. But of course, doing so does not make the text, the evidence, the documents, the history , the behavior of the "founders," and all the other indications of a modern hoax go away.
Still here and happy to be ignored,
--John
PS: As I have already said to Jeff and Mr. Poster, I agree with them that the science so far is contradictory and insufficient to establish a valid scientific conclusion. Mr. Poster has done a fine job explaining why in technical terms. So I hope they get their wish and that the full and complete tests they have discussed here are finally conducted. I do think it's cute though that on one thread Caroline Morris cites as evidence a letter from McCrone allegedly saying there's no way to determine when the ink went on the paper and on another thread she cites as evidence Voller saying he can tell us just that.
When you have no way to account for the text itself, I guess you have to turn to whatever works, no matter how contradictory it might be.
(Message edited by omlor on April 27, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 889
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
[I wrote]
(2) A complete absence of any evidence that the diary predates the publication of Fido's book and
(3) No known alternative source of the phrase, other than Fido's book."
I agree with #1; the other two points are your assertions.
So you disagree with (2) and (3)?
Well, if you disagree with (2), what is the evidence that the diary predates the publication of Fido's book?
And if you disagree with (3), what is the known alternative source of the phrase?
The reason I wrote (2) was that I've asked you over and over for an example of such evidence, and you ignored the question.
The reason I wrote (3) is that I've asked you over and over where you think the phrase could have come from, if not from the inventory, and you ignored that question too.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
hello my dear friends!
anyone would think i'd asked a simple question and then gone out.
Anyway,
this may take some time,
Hi Sir Robert,
OK, let's discuss this politely
Please can we ?
to be fair to me i didn't ask which was more likely. i asked what evidence there was that there was more than one copy? let me ask again because it probably got lost there's been a few messages since i was last here.
What was the standard City Police practice for such things? What are the facts?
we know what happened to the coronors report David O Flaherty told us - i think its on the tin match box/problem phrases thread.
thanks.
hi John,
a girl can ask!
anyway,
The evidence for the diary being a modern hoax comes from the text, not from Mike Barrett.
yes i agree totally with you!
Hi again Robert,
I agree that it would be incumbent on me to show tangible proof if I were asserting that this is indeed the way the hoaxer came across the inventory. I am, however, asserting that it is but one of several possibilities, and what I am asserting is in direct response to Jenni's contention that "tin match box, empty" is sufficient proof in and of itself that the Diary is a modern hoax.
it is only a possibilty if there is evidence that it happened Robert - this is my point, I am not trying to be a bitch about this, there is no evidnce the list existed outside the coroners report in any form, until 1987.
though sincerly i am glad to be talking about the tin match box and not the sodding crashaw quote, so im happy enough!
Hi John,
do not make me expalin the library thing to you again, we could fall out!
Hi David,
exactly!!
Hello Caroline,
But if these likely suspects were originally brought into the picture by Mike, or via one or more of his claims, beware, because there are many more ways than one of being outsmarted by Mike.
know need to worry here Caz.
Coincidentally, Keith Skinner tells me that he asked Martin Fido two weeks ago about his book being used for the diary and he still rejects the notion.
I can't beleive we are going over this again. listen who would want to think their book had been used to create one of if not the biggest blight on the enitire field of Ripperology. No one. Once more how would Martin Fido know if the book had or had not been used unless he
a) faked the diary himself
or
b) knew the person who did and was there when they faked it
?
Jenni
ps sorry in advance i have not spell checked this post and it is far too long!
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Hi Lars,
Well, at least you are honest. Thank you for that.
Yes, unfortunately fantasy is all the old hoax scenario has when it comes to the textual problems. That's because all the evidence that is explained so simply and and logically via a modern hoax scenario cannot be explained with anything other than pure fantasy via an old hoax scenario. we have seen that vividly demonstrated here today.
Concerning the words in this text and what they indicate about the date of its composition -- on one side there is reason and textual evidence and actual published documents and simple common sense. On the other is nothing but fantasy.
I'm glad the side I support is the one that has actual, evidenced, common sense explanations.
Hey everybody,
Just in case you were keeping score:
In my post from today at 1:45 pm above I asked Sir Robert five specific, direct, and simple questions.
Please scroll up to see exactly what they were.
Total number he has been willing or able to answer so far: 0
Let's see if that number ever changes. I'll offer updates regularly.
Some scenarios have real answers, some do not.
All the best,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
"What was the standard City Police practice for such things? What are the facts?"
An excellent question, and mercifully one that is more mainstream Ripperology than most Diary World contretemps. Let's see what we can find.
Of course, and there is always an 'of course' (lol), I would ask if after the Double Event the City and Met police as well as the Yard would have been following 'normal' procedures.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Hi Jennifer,
I'm sure people know, but that amateur stuff of mine just supports a point already made by Melvin Harris (I think it was Melvin). Outside of our diary discussion, nobody really cares about access.
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Lars
Well, thanks for your candour about fantasy.
I'd still be interested in an answer to my other question, though:
do you know of any evidence at all that indicates it was written before the 1980s?
(Why doesn't anyone want to answer that question?)
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Thanks for the reconfirmation, David.
Clearly we're dealing here with hope, not evidence.
And there is plenty in the text itself that CAN be explained simply and clearly, if the diary is a modern hoax. And cannot under the old hoax dream.
This is just one of a long list.
--John
PS: Five questions asked, still 0 answered. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 204
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Its the accumulation of evidence that seems to indicate the Diary is a modern hoax , rather than being genuine or being an old forgery. Not just the ' tin matchbox empty ' but the Poste House , the similarities to Bernard Ryan's book and so on.
If the Diary was an old hoax , where was it before the early 1990s ? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 4:05 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
so what you are saying is you do not know what the standard practice was?
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:05 am: |
|
Hold everything
Are you saying that Martin Fido doesn't/didnt beleive his 1987 book was the main source for the Hoaxer to create the diary????
I think this is pretty significant.
In the article I read yesterday it seemed to state fairly clearly that he beleived this was the source crossed with a couple of books on Maybrick and the Hoaxer having grown up with Morriarty.
So can we just confirm: Is Martin Fido's book the source of the Maybrick diary or not?
The one thing we can be sure about the Ripper case is that a number of documents and photo's are missing. And there is a possibility that some of these artifacts could resurface.
Sir Robert is correct. He only needs to show a 'possibility' and the Modern Hoax advocates cant claim they can prove the diary is a modern Hoax. Its that simple.
All we can say is its 'probably' a modern hoax.until tests prove otherwise.
Also I know for a fact, as I have been talking to a private detective with reguards to the Jack the Stripper case. Police documents/information that should not be available can be available for the right price-FACT.
WAS FIDO's book the source? If he said not then he must have had a good reason to think so, given the article I read yesterday.
Can we clarrify this point.
Jeff
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 892
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
Jeff
So can we just confirm: Is Martin Fido's book the source of the Maybrick diary or not?
Please just think about it.
How on earth can anyone except the hoaxer know this?
The only way Martin Fido or anyone else could be sure the hoaxer hadn't used his book is if it could be proved the diary was written before the book was published. No one can offer any evidence at all that indicates that.
Sir Robert is correct. He only needs to show a 'possibility' and the Modern Hoax advocates cant claim they can prove the diary is a modern Hoax. Its that simple.
He needs to show something a sane person would find plausible. Anyone can spin a bizarre fantasy without a shred of supporting evidence, to explain away anything.
Does anyone - including Sir Robert - really believe, having looked at the "literary style" of the diary, that its author is the sort of person who could or would have conducted lengthy searches in the archives, and discovered original documents that the most diligent and skilful Ripper researchers have failed to find before or since?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
yes that is what they are saying about Martin Fido.
I would have to say i think Martin's book is the most likely source. Equally the records were open to the public since 1986, so not the only source.
Sir Robert is correct. He only needs to show a 'possibility' and the Modern Hoax advocates cant claim they can prove the diary is a modern Hoax. Its that simple.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
However,there is evidence of where a modern source is.
Robert is just relying on suppersition. If he knew something about police procedure he was willing to share fine. Otherwise all we have is an assumption.
we can equally make the opposite assumption, in fact we do,
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Jeff,
Until Caroline or Keith or Martin actually come here and explain how Martin would know whether his book was used or not and why he says what he says, we can't really discuss the question -- since all we have here is a mention of what is so far only a vague and general impression, not an explanation.
So, as of yet, it doesn't help us with the specifics in the text one bit.
Meanwhile, there is a long list of moments in the text that can be explained simply and easily if the diary is a modern composition and can't be explained at all if it's not. (Except by desperately hoping that maybe there's something out there, for each and every one of the problems all at the same time, that we just don't know about yet.)
Remember this, which I wrote to you yesterday:
There is stuff we do know is written in the text. And, in each and every case where there is a difficulty or a problem, a modern hoax scenario explains it simply and easily using basic common sense while an old hoax theory cannot explain it except by repeatedly saying "maybe there's something out there we don't know about yet."
Every single time.
So either the simple and obvious common sense explanations are also the correct ones...
or
There exists a series of multiple simultaneous, heretofore completely undiscovered remarkable textual coincidences out there somewhere somehow despite all the available evidence and all the odds.
It's not just one that would have to be found, it's a whole host of them. At some point, simple rational inductive logic allows you to opt for choice A. Choice B is a far fetched dream, a desperate hope based on no evidence at all (in stark contrast to its alternative).
The pattern of evidence itself indicates a modern date of composition.
We discussed the match box issue for an entire day here yesterday.
At the beginning of the day no one had produced any evidence of any sort that even suggested that the police list used in the diary was available before 1987.
By the end of the day no one had produced any evidence of any sort that even suggested that the police list used in the diary was available before 1987.
They have none. Just like they have none to explain any of the other textual moments in the diary that indicate a modern date of composition, just like they have none to explain the diary's complete lack of verifiable provenance, just like they have none to explain the lies told by the people who brought the book forward.
They have nothing, Jeff. And so are left only dreaming.
And, of course, ignoring posts for which they have no rational or evidenced response.
And trying very hard not to answer specific and simple questions, like the five I asked Sir Robert.
Here's a test, Jeff.
Read those five questions here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=128240#POST128240
And then ask yourself what his answers might be and why no one who supports an old hoax theory can or will answer them.
It might tell you something about the state of the evidence here and about the diary's composition.
Thanks and all the best,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:19 am: |
|
"However,there is evidence of where a modern source is.
Robert is just relying on suppersition. If he knew something about police procedure he was willing to share fine. Otherwise all we have is an assumption. "
Hold on a minute - I raised a point, questioning the notion that the police made no copies of Eddowes' possessions. I postulated that they probably "c/c'ed" quite a few people on it given how high profile the case was at that point. If it was Tabram's stuff, I wouldn't raise the issue; by the time of the Double Event, I believe senior people probably wanted copies of everything sent to them. You think the City wasn't sharing with the Met at that point? With the Yard?
And yes, it's a "suppersition" , which is what we're supposed to be doing here - raising questions and trying to find answers. I make no pretence at being a professional Ripperologist; for me this is an interesting hobby.
Knowing the bureaucracy that pervades all organizations like the police, both then as now, I’d suspect there were many copies of the list of Eddowes’ possessions floating around. Don't forget that the list is not only that of her possessions, but also possibly things Jack left behind. It's evidence.
If you wish to argue that the possible existence of other but unknown copies of the report that a forger might have seen is wishful thinking, fine. I'm hoping others will chime in on what is reasonable to expect for police procedures at that time.
Another point is that we don’t know that the inventory wasn’t published in a provincial newspaper somewhere that the forger may have seen – for example, have all contemporary copies of the Liverpool press and surrounding districts been checked? Prima facie those are the ones the forger is most likely to have consulted and it might be telling if nobody has checked them, particularly those who argue that the empty tin match box reference was only in print in Fido 1987.
And no, I'm not shutting down my companies here in the States to run over to Liverpool to root through storage facilities. I'm also not demanding others do so, simply pointing out that there are several good reasons that "tin match box, empty" is not proof in and of itself of a modern hoax. Not yet, at any rate.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Total amount of real new evidence that the police list was available to the public before 1987 in that last post: 0
Total amount of real evidence EVER offered by anyone anywhere, including all those who think the diary is an old hoax, that explains the appearance of the police list in the diary: 0
Total amount of real evidence EVER offered by anyone, including all those who think the diary is an old hoax, that explains all the other similar textual problems in the diary: 0
Total amount of reasons with supporting evidence ever offered for not thinking that the simple, common sense, obvious and evidenced explanations that CAN and DO account for each and every one of these problems are the correct ones: 0
Do we have any evidence that the diary was available to the general public after 1987: Yes, and we even know it for certain.
Just like in each and every case, just like in the case of the Poste House, and the modern letter formations, and the mistakes also found in modern sources, and the lack of provenance, and the behavior of those who brought the book forward and all the rest, we have a choice between a scenario that is supported by the evidence and fits in with all the other evidence in the text and one that is supported by NO evidence whatsoever and contradicts all the other evidence in the text.
And nothing Sir Robert will write today, tomorrow, or I would bet ever, is going to change that.
Finally,
Total number of those five simple, direct and clear questions Sir Robert has been able and willing to answer so far: 0
Still.
Stay tuned for further updates,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
Hi again Robert,
yes i don't disagree, that }sounds quite plausible. BUT what i asked was what evidence you had that it happened.
Surely it wouldn't take much to find out. a quick email for example might resolve that for you.
If you wish to argue that the possible existence of other but unknown copies of the report that a forger might have seen is wishful thinking, fine.
thats not what i am arguing. i see your point, i understand your point. I asked a simple, straightforward question, about what the police procedure was. now that was yesterday.
its ok I'll stop asking you. Its fine.
I'm not trying to be a bitch here.
Lets move on. Who had access to the list(s)?
How did the newspapers recieve information form the City police?
John,
do I have to stay tuned for further updates?
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
"a quick email for example might resolve that for you. "
OK........curiousity compels me to ask you: email whom? Point me in the right direction and I'll fire away.
I have been poking around in my Ripper books, trying to glean what was "normal" procedure. So far, I've seen nothing that addresses the issue directly, but see some things that would support the view that the coroner's office would indeed forward a copy of the inquest papers to other offices.
Just digging into Sugden for starters:
1)In the Emma Smith case, the coroner forwarded a copy of his papers to the Public Prosecutor. (p.xii)
Now, at some point, if you find a charge of willful murder by person or persons unknown, I would think the inquest papers would have to be sent to the Prosecutor. So there's another set of eyeballs on Eddowes' possessions.
Yes, a surmise.
2) More specifically with respect to Eddowes: on p.245 Sudgen says that Dr. Brown was called in by the City, and Dr. Phillips by the Met to jointly examine the body. Swanson is quoted commenting on their opinions.
Surmise: If Swanson had a detailed report from each of these doctors regarding the condition of Eddowes' body, is it reasonable to believe he did not also have a copy of the list of her possessions? The Met went so far as to send their own representative to the autopsy; I can't believe they didn't care about what had been found ON the body or NEAR the body.
Again, I say that her possessions are not just important because they're the trinkets of an unfortunate, but because the murderer may have left something behind. They are important evidence.
And I surmise that many eyeballs would have seen that list.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Ok, Ok,
Hi there Robert,
OK - so who would have seen the list FOR EXAMPLE?
I am not saying a comprehensive list of people who would have seen it - i am saying who do you suppose would have?
Clearly the Coroner himself would have?
who else? where is this pool of likely fakers?
I'm going with you here Robert, convince me!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 835
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Robert,
Thanks for that citation from Sugden. I think we must have different editions (mine's old, 1994), because I can't find a page xii. Can you supply a quote please? That's a question I've been wondering about myself, if coroners would have sent over a transcript when no trial was actually pending (since the murderers of Smith and the Ripper victims were unknown).
Here's what the 1887 Coroner's Act says. I've transcribing the whole section, but it's 5(3) that's of interest. I include the rest because the context seems to be that there has actually been an arrest made:
5.-(1.) Where a coroner's inquisition charges a person with the offence of murder or of manslaughter, or of being accessory before the fact to a murder, (which latter offence is in this Act included in the pexpression "murder,") the coroner shall issue his warrant for arresting or detaining such person (if such warrant has not previously been issued) and shall bind by recognizance all such persons examined before him as know or declare anything material touching the said offence to appear at the next court of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery at which the trial is to be, then and there to prosecute or give evidence against the person so charged.
(2.) Where the offence is manslaughter, the coroner may, if he thinks fit, accept bail by recognizance with sufficient sureties for the appearance of the person charged at the next court of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery at which the trial is to be, and thereupon such person if in the custody of an officer of the coroner's court or under a warrant of commitment issued by such coroner shall be discharged therefrom.
(3.) The coroner shall deliver the inquisition, deposition, and recognizances, with a certificate under his hand that the same have been taken before him, to the proper officer of the court in which the trial is to be, before or at the opening of the court.
The Act is kind of vague, but I take it to mean that a copy of the inquest would be provided when a trial was imminent. But I'm no lawyer (and I believe Sugden is). So if the Emma Smith inquest was provided to a prosecutor, that would be interesting--you've got a murder verdict, but no murderer, no trial.
And what became of those inquest deposotions that were handed over to the court? Were they kept? Were they accessible and to whom? They still would have followed the same period of closure and not have been open to the public.
Again, thanks for the reference.
Dave |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hey Dave - more than happy to have a 'calm' discussion.
"Thanks for that citation from Sugden. I think we must have different editions (mine's old, 1994), because I can't find a page xii. Can you supply a quote please? That's a question I've been wondering about myself, if coroners would have sent over a transcript when no trial was actually pending (since the murderers of Smith and the Ripper victims were unknown). "
My copy is dated 2002.
Here is what he says, after a discussion how first crimes in a series are interesting because they are typically less well-planned and might reveal more about the assailant.
"However, when I attempted to research Emma's murder my efforts were quickly frustrated by the loss of records. There was press reports of the inquest, of course, and at the Royal London Hospital, where Emma died, I found the record of her admission. But after that it was one dead end after another. At the Public Record Office I learned that Emma's file had disappeared from the Metropolitan Police case papers at some time before 1983, and at what was then the Greater London Record Office (now London Metropolitan Archives) that no relevant coroner's papers for the old Eastern district of Middlesex survived. A ray of hope invigorated my efforts when I discovered that Coroner Wynne Baxter had sent a copy of his inquest papers to the Public Prosecutor, but it was soon extinguished. All that remains today in the records of the Director of Public Prosecutions is a single line entry in a register of cases. In the comments column is the cryptic remark: 'no one in custody' And that I thought, was that."
Sudgen goes on to say that it turned out Whittington-Egan had a copy of notes taken from the Met Police file before it was lost.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 837
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Now we're getting somewhere, Robert. So Sugden's very clear--Wynne Baxter did, at least in the Smith case and presumably the Ripper inquests, provide copies to the DPP, although there was no imminent trial.
So the thing to do would be to check with the same case registry Phil Sugden checked and see if Langham did the same. Maybe we can also learn something about what the procedure would have been relating to archiving inquest material. If the DPP was accepting inquest material for possible future prosecutions, then there must have been a procedure for storing and accessing these documents, it would seem to me.
Remember, even if we do find that Langham supplied the prosecutor with a copy, we already know these depositions would not have been available to the public. Same rules of closure in effect for the coroner's office would, I believe, apply to any copy, wherever it is. Also, since there was no trial in the murder of Catherine Eddowes, at no time was the inquest deposition ever read into another record (like a trial transcript). Apparently, at least in the Smith case, the record hasn't survived anyway--kind of tough to access those  Maybe an archivist can tell us what might have been done with them.
I think it's pretty far-fetched that any hoaxer would have gone through the prosecutor's archives. But I personally find procedure interesting and an interesting exercise.
By the way, I've seen another case where a coroner failed to provide a deposition to the correct officer and the judge fined him (a provision for fining is also made in the Coroner's Act, 1887). Langham, who was a coroner of some type for almost 60 years and an officer of the Coroner's Society, would have been up on procedure, I feel.
But anyway, that goes towards answering a question I had about coronial procedure that's really unrelated to the diary. Thanks.
Dave |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
Good post, Dave.
"Pretty far-fetched" indeed. But that's the state of things for the old hoax scenario.
And it doesn't look like anything is going to change anytime soon.
Only one theory has actual explanations, based on documents we know exist and real evidence, for the numerous problems in the text.
And we all know which theory that is.
All the best,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:33 pm: |
|
To everyone in Diary World (one of my very favorite places):
As some of you may have noticed, I have been scrambling to send a flurry of posts to these threads the last couple of days. It was a deliberately timed effort.
I wanted to establish, by forcing a debate that revealed exactly how much evidence each side actually had, which scenario offered simple and common sense explanations for the text and which side offered no explanations and no evidence and nothing but the hope that maybe there was stuff they just didn't know. I wanted to establish that one scenario accounts for every single problem in the text with clear and obvious evidence and the other is unable to account for any of those problems whatsoever and has no actual evidence to support its reading.
And I wanted to demonstrate here that the choice is between a theory based on evidence, based on texts we know exist and based on common sense, and the other is a theory which barely even exists and which is based on vague hopes and prayers about what we don't know. That is, one theory for the textual difficulties is based on what we do know and the other is based on what we don't.
Simple logic tells you which theory, therefore, is the rational, logical, and evidenced one.
The old hoax proponents have no evidence at all that supports any reasonable explanation for the police list being in the diary, for the Poste House being the diary, for the same mistakes about the murders being in the diary and modern sources, for Mike being the only one able to identify the quote, for the diary's complete lack of any verifiable provenance or for the lies told by the people who brought us the book. They have no evidence to support any explanation for any of this stuff.
But a modern hoax scenario accounts neatly for all of is using simple common sense.
That's the choice you are offered.
One side pushing evidence and logic and able to account for each and every textual problem. The other side pushing hope and dreams about unknown stuff, with no real evidence, and still completely unable to offer a supported explanation for ANY of the textual problems.
I think rational thinkers and close readers have an easy choice to make as to which theory is the more reasonable, the more sensible, the more logical and the more sound.
Now then...
Having said all that, the reason I spent these past two days trying to sketch out these differences for everyone is that I suspected this moment was about to arrive.
As those of you who exchange e-mails with me already know (and, in some cases have known for some time), I've been fighting a fairly serious problem in my right wrist. Well, today was a diagnostic visit and, to make a long story short, in a final effort to avoid surgery, I must immobilize my hand and wrist for two weeks starting tomorrow. If the situation improves dramatically in that time, I can opt for treatment. If not, then there'll be a fairly simple operation, which I would nonetheless like to avoid.
I've already mentioned this to some people, but I wanted everyone to know, so that my sudden absence would not be a mystery.
So you all now have two weeks without me. Take your best shots. See if you can come up with any real evidence to support your own scenarios. And I'll read and enjoy it all and return to comment on whether or not anything new or real has happened in a fortnight.
Believe it or not, I am fond of all you people, even those I rag on and disagree with. It's great fun hanging here and doing this craziness we do (whether I'm being deliberately ignored by a couple of people or not -- in fact even being ignored was special in a way -- it was a strong indication that I must be doing something right).
So enjoy the peace, if there is any. And I'll be back in a couple of weeks to see if anything has changed and if anything new has been said.
Take care, and remember, above all entertain the folks,
--John
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 839
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Hey John,
Best of luck with your wrist and I hope you'll be able to avoid the surgery. Talk with you when you come back.
Cheers,
Dave |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Hi All,
McCrone wrote that there was no reliable method of determining when ink met paper.
Voller stated in 1995 that the diary ink certainly did not go on the paper in recent years and that, in his professional opinion, the writing was at least 90 years old.
No one, not even Voller, claimed that his visual examination was able to determine when the diary was written, let alone that it was a reliable method of doing so.
Hi Jeff,
Are you saying that Martin Fido doesn't/didnt beleive his 1987 book was the main source for the Hoaxer to create the diary????
I was responding to a question on the boards relating to the last time anybody asked Martin about his book being used in the composition of the diary. Keith Skinner had done exactly that just two weeks previously and, according to Keith, Martin 'still rejects the notion'.
I realise the question wasn't asked with any expectation of getting such a swift and (no doubt unwelcome in certain quarters) answer. But I'm used to being shot as the messenger by those who claim the diary author must have got his empty match box from Martin's book.
I don't know why anyone would expect me to know how or why Martin feels this way, or to offer any explanation - I am as much in the dark as everyone else. All I know is that he read the diary and didn't think his book had been a source of its ripper information.
Hi Chris P,
The only way Martin Fido or anyone else could be sure the hoaxer hadn't used his book is if it could be proved the diary was written before the book was published. No one can offer any evidence at all that indicates that.
Poor old Alec Voller - what has he ever done to you, to be tossed aside and forgotten, as if his ink experience and expertise counts for nothing at all in Diary World? The only way anyone can be sure Martin's book was used is by showing that Voller got the order badly wrong and that the diary was written after Martin's book (oddly familiar-sounding problem there).
Hi Jenni,
I would have to say i think Martin's book is the most likely source.
Thank you for that opinion. I will now weigh that alongside Martin's, that his own written work wasn't a source at all. Just as I weigh Bernard Ryan's opinion, that his own work on Maybrick wasn't used as a source, alongside that of others who think it most likely was. And just as I weigh Voller's opinion, that his own ink wasn't used in the diary, alongside that of others who think it most likely was.
But I can see why, in these instances, the modern hoax believers would give the professional opinions of Fido, Ryan and Voller a seat right at the back of the house where they can't make too much of a nuisance of themselves.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I look forward to a detailed explanation of the old hoax theory from you then
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 535
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
John,
Sorry to hear about the wrist and to change an old (older than the Diary no matter what anyone believes) joke:
Will John be able to play great golf after he recovers?
Of course.
That's good, because he never could before. 
Seriously, best of luck.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 906
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
[I wrote]
The only way Martin Fido or anyone else could be sure the hoaxer hadn't used his book is if it could be proved the diary was written before the book was published. No one can offer any evidence at all that indicates that.
Voller stated in 1995 that the diary ink certainly did not go on the paper in recent years and that, in his professional opinion, the writing was at least 90 years old.
...
Poor old Alec Voller - what has he ever done to you, to be tossed aside and forgotten, as if his ink experience and expertise counts for nothing at all in Diary World?
I might ask you the same question! After all, I have asked that question about evidence indicating an old hoax about 20 times, and this is the first time Voller has been mentioned.
But thank you for finally doing so.
Now - and sorry if I'm being predictable - what I was hoping for was some evidence, and what you've provided me with, yet again, is a professional opinion.
So - did Voller explain at all what features of his visual observation indicated the great age of the writing in the diary? Or did he just - like the famous maths professor when asked to justify a step in his proof - brood over it for a few hours and then exclaim "It's obvious!"
Chris Phillips
PS I'm a bit puzzled that you put forward Voller's opinion as "evidence" that the writing "certainly did not go on the paper in recent years", but that you then immediately add:
No one, not even Voller, claimed that his visual examination was able to determine when the diary was written, let alone that it was a reliable method of doing so.
Still, in Diary World, we should be used to being puzzled by now!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Hi,
BTW I should mention something here since i know John is unable to type.
Caz you mentioned MCrone, did you ever put up that text that John was asking about?
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 908
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
McCrone wrote that there was no reliable method of determining when ink met paper.
By the way, it's odd that you bring this up again just after John has announced he's not going to be able to post here for a while owing to a medical condition.
As you know, he has questioned whether the quotations you've posted from McCrone give a balanced picture, and has asked you to post the full text.
Is there any particular reason why you refuse to do so?
But I can see why, in these instances, the modern hoax believers would give the professional opinions of Fido, Ryan and Voller a seat right at the back of the house where they can't make too much of a nuisance of themselves.
And hang on a minute there!
Are you now saying that Fido and Ryan believe the diary is an old hoax?
I thought you'd only just told us that Fido believed it was written by Mike Barrett!
Posting all these selective quotations from people's "professional opinions" is one thing, but for heaven's sake try to get your story straight!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Hey Chris,
we cross posted. But you are so right!
funny how neither of us forget about it though isn't it? maybe it has something to do with the amount of times John asked without getting a reply? or maybe it coincidence!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 2:29 am: |
|
Hello Chris
I'd still be interested in an answer to my other question, though:
do you know of any evidence at all that indicates it was written before the 1980s?
Do you know of any evidence that indciates half a dozen other suspects who are still discussed and from whom the Casebook gets good milage.
I try to explain, and am not sure how I feel the need to, that the discussion we follow in these thread is no less fancifull than those in others.
If a lot of venom had not been sprayed around needlessly in the older days, this thread could be a happy plave to chit chat. But now everyone walks on egg shells it seems.
Anyway, I am happy in my hope.
Its a beautiful day, the sun shines and I live in a society where we are free to discuss what we want without fear of attack, ridicule or general disparaging! Happy days!!!!!
Lars |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
Hi All.
For heaven's sake, why don't you all put this diary to bed, once and forever, and apply your undoubted talents and knowledge to worthwhile issues on the Ripper case.
The diary has been thoroughly exposed as a fake, on many fronts. Who cares if it's a modern fake, or an old fake? (I'd bet on modern). Who cares about Mike Barrett? That guy must be laughing up his sleeve at the mayhem and bickering & squabbling he's caused between normally intelligent people, not to mention the money he's probably made at the expense of gullible Ripperologists.
It's time to toss this diary, and Barrett, into the trash can where they belong.
Regards to all.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 3:22 am: |
|
Hello
Just a question (and no I dont know of any evidence to suggest it was an old hoax).
If you were to be convicted of a serious crime based on the textual evidence of modern hoax, would you still think it was watertight and that there was no room for reasonable doubt?
Mr Poster |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1679
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 4:02 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
...I have asked that question about evidence indicating an old hoax about 20 times, and this is the first time Voller has been mentioned.
You are kidding me, right? Are you seriously saying this is the first time you have seen Alec Voller's name and his professional opinions mentioned on these boards over recent weeks? It's just as well I gave you a nudge when I did, otherwise you'd have been stuck on the same question forever.
If you want to know as much as I do about Voller and his observations, check out pages 369-374 of Shirley Harrison's Blake edition.
PS I'm a bit puzzled that you put forward Voller's opinion as "evidence" that the writing "certainly did not go on the paper in recent years", but that you then immediately add:
No one, not even Voller, claimed that his visual examination was able to determine when the diary was written, let alone that it was a reliable method of doing so.
Then I shall help you get yourself un-puzzled. Being able to determine when the diary was written, using a reliable method of forensic testing, is one thing. In fact, it's one thing universally acknowledged around here to be lacking.
Making a visual examination and giving a professional opinion on when the ink didn't go on the paper, is another thing.
I have just enough expertise to state with absolute certainty that the ink didn't go on the paper as early as 1887 or as late as 1993, for example.  Voller claimed to be certain that the ink didn't go on the paper in recent years.
Neither of us is claiming to have determined, using a reliable forensic testing method, when the diary was written.
See? It's quite straightforward really. The only thing for you to decide is whether Voller's opinions should count as evidence for the diary not being a late 1980s creation. My opinion is that they should; you are free to hold a different opinion.
If you spent more time reading what I actually wrote, and less time thinking up ways to trip me up, you wouldn't trip yourself up quite so much.
I wrote:
But I can see why, in these instances, [added emphasis] the modern hoax believers would give the professional opinions of Fido, Ryan and Voller a seat right at the back of the house where they can't make too much of a nuisance of themselves.
By writing 'in these instances', I thought it was obvious that I meant the opinions relating specifically and exclusively to whether or not our resourceful diary author used the literary and inky creations of Fido, Ryan and Voller when creating his/her own.
Are you now saying that Fido and Ryan believe the diary is an old hoax?
So no, I think you should now be able to see that I wasn't saying, or implying, anything remotely like that.
In fact, in previous posts, I already stated that Fido is on record as saying that the diary is either a modern hoax or genuine, and that Ryan apparently believes Feldman proved it genuine.
I'm sorry my words tend to make you puzzled or cross, and I hope I have now solved this particular crossword puzzle for you.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 30, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:04 am: |
|
i don't want to say to much but
Ryan apparently believes Feldman proved it genuine
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 9:20 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I'm willing to believe that what you wrote was muddled, rather than deliberately misleading.
I suppose what you meant to write was something like this:
But I can see why, in these instances, those who believe the hoax made use of Fido's book would give the professional opinions of Fido, Ryan and Voller a seat right at the back of the house where they can't make too much of a nuisance of themselves.
Clearly writing "the modern hoax believers" made no sense at all, as by your own account Fido is himself a "modern hoax believer"!
It's precisely because of this kind of verbal muddle that we keep asking for the evidence to be quoted verbatim and in full, rather than to be summarised in you words and illustrated with selective quotations.
As far as your other "experts" go:
(1) McCrone.
Please could you post this in full, rather than the selected quotation you posted before?
(2) Voller.
You give us another summary in your own words, about Voller being able to say when the diary wasn't written but unable to say when it was written. But you don't mention whether he gives any justification for his opinion.
Frankly, if you're raising him as an authority, it would be nice if you could give us at least a hint of what his opinion is based on. But I'll bear him in mind when I next have a chance to look at Harrison's book.
(3) Fido.
Still can't see how he could conceivably be in a position to know that his book wasn't used by the diarist. We'll just have to keep guessing on that one.
(4) Ryan.
Ryan apparently believes Feldman proved it genuine
Oh. Right. I can see why you wouldn't have wanted to mention that first time round!
That's one "professional opinion" I am quite happy to ignore.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 9:29 am: |
|
Mr Poster
If you were to be convicted of a serious crime based on the textual evidence of modern hoax, would you still think it was watertight and that there was no room for reasonable doubt?
Thank you for putting it that way. I think it's a very good analogy - though I'd rather you pictured me as a juryman rather than the defendant!
My answer is that I do think the diary has been proved to be a modern hoax "beyond reasonable doubt".
Not proved in the same way that Pythagoras's Theorem can be proved, but beyond reasonable doubt nevertheless.
Defence lawyers will always come up with some way of discrediting or explaining away the evidence for the prosecution. I think that's just what we've been seeing in the discussions of the Crashaw quotation and the "tin match box empty".
People can always come up with such stories, and it's impossible to disprove them absolutely. We can't discount absolutely the amazing coincidences that are needed to explain away the evidence that the hoax is a modern one, but we can say they are so unlikely as to place the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
" Fido is on record as saying that the diary is either a modern hoax or genuine,"
I'm curious, Caz -- should I take this to mean he doesn't regard the "old hoax" hypothesis as viable? Personally, I'd think that's a more reasonable point of view than believing if it's old, it must be the work of the Ripper. Or Maybrick, for that matter.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Hello Chris
I largely agree with you. And it alsways worried me the way that the Harrison book mentions the "empty box" in the text and uses it as a way to prove authenticity but when you read the text of the diary it really stands out that there is something strange in the way that point is made.
We are very harsh on otehr evidence though! And it seems we discard/accept a lot on Sugdens analysis.
Mr Poster |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris wrote:
Voller stated in 1995 that the diary ink certainly did not go on the paper in recent years and that, in his professional opinion, the writing was at least 90 years old.
I've had a quick delve into the old posts on the CD.
As Caroline Morris must know - as she participated in the relevant thread at the time - Voller's conclusions have been hotly contested, and - as I read it - Voller himself implicitly conceded that Diamine ink could acquire an appearance similar to that of the diary in only a few years.
This extract from a post by Melvin Harris, dated 3 May 1999, is illuminating. He speaks of Paul Begg's claim that Alec Voller, the former chemist at Diamine Inks, had examined the Diary and concluded that the ink was not Diamine's, and shows signs of bronzing and was thus old.
After discussing Voller's opinion that the diary ink contained nigrosine, which was at odds with the results of the Leeds tests, Harris asks:
But is Voller reliable? At this point note that Voller only saw the Diary pages on October 30, 1995. Three years earlier none of those who examined the Diary saw any signs of bronzing. Even Robert Smith conceded its absence. Dr Baxendale, the first to examine this ink, is adamant that his thorough optical inspection failed to show any signs of iron ageing.
He continues:
To begin with, Voller may understand the basic chemistry of ink bronzing, but he is not a dedicated document examiner and does not own a reference collection of dated samples of aged ink on paper. Such a collection is essential, since the process of age bronzing is erratic and wholly unpredictable. My own reference collection proves this up to the hilt. One example dated 8 July 1968 is more bronzed than a sample from 1901. A random riffle through the sheets discloses samples dating from 1953, 1949, 1947, 1930, 1931, 1934, 1926, and 1925 which show more bronzing than letters dated Sept 1882 and April 1859. And on a number of pages we find selective bronzing; some letters affected while others remaining dark.
But it was Voller's very helpfulness that now provides us with final proof that his views must be discounted. In January 1995 Mr Voller kindly made up a special batch of the original iron-gall based Diamine Manuscript ink and sent it to surgeon Nick Warren. On January 26, 1995, Nick wrote me a letter using Voller's ink: it reads, in part, "Dear Melvin, I am writing these words in 'Diary' ink, i.e. the original Diamine black MS recreated for us by Alec Voller. As you can see the effect is very watery, astonishingly so at first...looking forward to receiving the colour photocopy, Yours Truly Jack the Ripper. Best Wishes Nick" TODAY THE INK ON THAT LETTER LOOKS AGED AND IS BRONZED IN PARTS. WHILE THE "JACK THE RIPPER" SIGNATURE AND THE FLOURISHES UNDER IT ARE EXTRA BRONZED, SINCE THEY WERE WRITTEN WITH A THIN STEEL NIB OF VICTORIAN PATTERN. IT MAY LOOK OLD BUT THAT INK WENT BRONZE AFTER BEING ON PAPER JUST A MERE THREE YEARS. WHICH MEANS THAT VOLLER'S DATING STANDARDS ARE INVALID.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 921
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Mr Poster
We are very harsh on otehr evidence though! And it seems we discard/accept a lot on Sugdens analysis.
I agree some pieces of evidence are stronger than others, and earlier in this thread I did argue that there were alternative explanations of some of Jenni's suggested "modern hoax" indicators (and these may apply even though the hoax is modern).
For me, the Crashaw quotation and "tin match box empty" are the strongest indicators that the hoax is modern - along, of course, with the very suspicious lack of any provenance for the diary before its appearance.
The "Poste House" is another one. No one can say it's impossible there could have been another pub with this as completely unrecorded nickname, but given the rarity of the name it seems extremely unlikely anything but the present-day "Poste House" is meant.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1688
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Hi All,
Hi Chris,
Ok, what I should have written, to make it crystal clear for you and save us both a bit of time was this:
But I can see why the modern hoax believers, who insist on these boards that the diary author made use of Fido's book, are giving the professional opinions of Fido, Ryan and Voller, who don't think their own products were used, a seat right at the back of the house where they can't make too much of a nuisance of themselves.
If you honestly got hold of the wrong end of the stick from what I wrote originally, I sincerely hope you’ve grasped the right end this time.
If you are so desperate to see the full context of the McCrone quote I posted, I can only suggest you email the person who claimed to possess a copy of the whole letter. The copy from which my quote was taken is not currently in my possession, nor was it mine to quote in full anyway.
Yes, please do read everything Voller had to say, as reported in Shirley’s Blake edition. It doesn't make any sense to me to dispute his opinions, if you haven't read them lately, and use extracts by Melvin to tide you over until you do.
Although, if your general principle is not to consider anyone’s statements unless the whole document/conversation, from ‘Dear Sirs’/“Pleased to meet you” to ‘Yours sincerely’/“Cheerio” is included, in case you are being deliberately misled, I imagine your life must be one big disappointment, not least because you could never accumulate enough reliable evidence about anything to fill a match box.
Unfortunately, if every non-fiction book, or post to these message boards, had to provide every previously unpublished document in full, whether it be primary or secondary source, before a word could be extracted and used to make a point, we would all be the poorer for it, because of all the practical difficulties involved.
Ryan apparently believes Feldman proved it genuine
Oh. Right. I can see why you wouldn't have wanted to mention that first time round!
But that wasn’t the first time I mentioned it, nor even the second, since Ryan’s views on the diary have been aired and discussed on the boards in the past. If I hadn’t wanted to mention them ‘first time round’, I wouldn’t have done so second time either.
Voller himself implicitly conceded that Diamine ink could acquire an appearance similar to that of the diary in only a few years.
Could you explain, using direct quotes if possible (I don’t mind isolated ones), what you mean by ‘implicity conceded’ here? It appears to contradict everything Voller said in October 1995 - three and a half years (if that accords with your definition of ‘only a few years’?) after the diary emerged - about the diary ink’s appearance showing him ‘conclusively’ that it wasn’t Diamine.
Finally, many thanks for posting the following:
“…As you can see the effect is very watery, astonishingly so at first...looking forward to receiving the colour photocopy, Yours Truly Jack the Ripper. Best Wishes Nick" TODAY THE INK ON THAT LETTER LOOKS AGED AND IS BRONZED IN PARTS. WHILE THE "JACK THE RIPPER" SIGNATURE AND THE FLOURISHES UNDER IT ARE EXTRA BRONZED, SINCE THEY WERE WRITTEN WITH A THIN STEEL NIB OF VICTORIAN PATTERN. IT MAY LOOK OLD BUT THAT INK WENT BRONZE AFTER BEING ON PAPER JUST A MERE THREE YEARS. WHICH MEANS THAT VOLLER'S DATING STANDARDS ARE INVALID.
It will be very useful to compare Melvin’s observations, regarding three-year-old Diamine, with any observations resulting from RJ’s proposal to get the diary looked at again by Voller and others who saw it ten years ago and more.
Was Melvin able, I wonder, to see the bronzing and extra bronzing of Nick’s Diamine experiment clearly, with the naked eye? And was the slight bronzing Voller detected in 1995, by taking the diary over to the window, greeted with a universal, “Ah yes, I see the bronze colour here and there, now you’ve pointed it out” moment, or a “Well if you say so, but it still all looks grey/black to me” reaction?
I can’t wait to see what they’ll say about it today.
The "Poste House" is another one. No one can say it's impossible there could have been another pub with this as completely unrecorded nickname, but given the rarity of the name it seems extremely unlikely anything but the present-day "Poste House" is meant.
If you concede that the diary author wrote poste haste because he assumed it was spelt that way, it’s only logical to knock off the e in Poste House too. Then you’re on the slippery slope, because the use of the unrecorded nickname, the Post House (for post offices, or coffee houses, inns and hotels not generally referred to in local conversation by their official names), would have been about as rare in England throughout the 19th century as the posts on these boards discussing it.
As I’ve said before, we even have modern examples of local men who immediately recognise the term “POST HOUSE” when they hear it spoken, and connect it with the School Lane pub that was officially named the Post Office Tavern in 1888 - not the Cumberland St Poste House.
Would you put in your diary ‘I had a pint in the Post Office Tavern’, if you and your pals always called it something else in conversation? I suspect the Poste House in Cumberland St is no different, and would still have been called the Muck Midden or Sam Beattie’s by its regulars when you think the diary was being composed.
Hi Sir Robert,
" Fido is on record as saying that the diary is either a modern hoax or genuine,"
I'm curious, Caz -- should I take this to mean he doesn't regard the "old hoax" hypothesis as viable?
In 1993, Martin was disputing the date given by the Rendell team of circa 1921 for the diary’s creation, by stating on Radio 4 that: ‘…the whole shape of the case is either genuine or derived from post-war books, and, more importantly still, it describes Catherine Eddowes’ matchbox among her possessions as being empty and made of tin. This undoubted fact was not in the public domain until 1987 so the journal is either genuine or a very modern forgery’. But he did state before this: ‘Personally I don’t believe that the journal is genuine at all’. (Which of course is understood, because I also posted his current belief that Mike and Anne wrote it.)
And no, before anyone else asks (and I don't mean you, Sir Bobby), I am not going to find the whole interview and post it here to prove I’m not deliberately misleading people. Anyone who thinks so poorly of me can jolly well do their own research and find the documentation they want. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Caroline,
why did you not just say you didn't have the Macrone quote? we could have asked John.
Unfortunately his arm is bust up now so we won't be able to ask him until he's better.
Oh well, never mind,
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Wasn't there was a chain of hotels across the country called the Poste House? The Diarist could have named the Liverpool hostelry after one of these, oblivious to the fact that there was a pub in Liverpool by that name.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
http://cybaea.com/pictures/pcd2742/JVF2-10.5.html
Hi Sir Robert,
no, no - those hotels were called Posthouse, all one word no e.
See link
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on May 01, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
why did you not just say you didn't have the Macrone quote? we could have asked John.
But I did have the quote - I posted it. The only person who claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter from McCrone (which you and Chris are so keen to read) is the one person no one thought to ask before he went sick with his wrist.
Why did you not just ask him in the first place?
(And since he knew Chris was asking, he could have emailed it to him at the time, to support the claim that my quote is misleading when taken out of context. Perhaps you might like to ask him that too.)
If a girl gave you a toffee outside a sweet shop, would you ask to buy a box of toffees from her, and then get cross when she gave you a blank stare and eventually had to point to the shop?
Strangely enough, McCrone's understanding at the time of writing, that there was no reliable method of determining when ink met paper, is not too far removed from Chris's view, that science can't be expected to provide absolute proof of anything.
So I'm not sure why the McCrone quote is ruffling so many feathers.
Love,
Caz
X |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
