|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 10:40 am: | 
|
Then do we mean white sugar or brown sugar or castor sugar or beat sugar or cane....
I think the problem with sugar is that it could have been added to the ink by James Maybrick. I dont think sugar would have changed radicly in the last hundred years.
The only thing we'd learn by testing for sugar is whether Barrett was telling the truth.
If its not in the ink Barretts a liar, and we already know that.
If it is in the ink it could have gotten there at any point in history.....
What we want to find are modern contaminants. Something only used after 1987.
Did a quick google on why forgers might use sugar...perhaps it related to a programme Barrett heard about forging documents. I could find nothing.
Not certain sugar will take us to far Sir Bob but I have sent a question and awaiting answer.
Jeff |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
"I dont think sugar would have changed radicly in the last hundred years. "
Probably worth looking into...I wouldn't be shocked if the refining process has changed over the past 100+ years. Nor if something other than refined white sugar was the most popular sugar in Victorian times...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Well yes the refining process has changed but surely chemically the end product is still very much the same thing.
Now traces of a modern sweetner would be another matter but sugar I beleive will basically be the same stuff.
I'm willing to be proved wrong but my guess would be, sugar is a sticky wicket.
one lump or two?
Jeff |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Hi Caz
I don't think the choice of the name "Hammersmith" was either smart or not smart. As you show, the name existed in England. It is though an odd name to throw into the mix when so much of the Diary gives us expected names and expected material. So it stands out for that reason: the same way that the quotation from Crashaw stands out as not quite belonging with the rest. A whole cart full of oranges with a couple of apples. The inclusion of the name "Mrs. Hammersmith" in the Diary, just like the Crashaw quote, might be evidence of something though we may not know it yet.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 962
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Chris G
As you show, the name existed in England.
But not in 1888.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
You don't think that some of those people that Caz dug up in the 1871 census of England and Wales were alive in England in 1888?
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Chris,
surely they'd be on the 1881 census?
Jenni |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 963
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Chris G
You don't think that some of those people that Caz dug up in the 1871 census of England and Wales were alive in England in 1888?
I think you must have missed my response to Caroline Morris's earlier post:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=129818#POST129818
There seems to be a problem with these Hammersmiths that someone supplied to Caroline Morris from the Ancestry.com 1871 census index.
No births or marriages in FreeBMD, and no entries in the 1881 census index. I think we have to be sceptical unless the entries can be confirmed on microfilm.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
"But not in 1888."
The 1871 England Census shows some Hammersmiths existing in England. I don't think they died off in a mass extinction some fifteen years later.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 964
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
The 1871 England Census shows some Hammersmiths existing in England.
Please could you read my previous replies?
Thanks.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1740
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
If you feel it's of particular importance, your next step should be to check the census returns on microfilm, to see if the surnames have been transcribed correctly.
I don’t feel it’s of enough importance to do your work for you, if that’s what you are suggesting. If you suspect that all ten Hammersmith examples from the 1871 census may have fallen victim to mistranscription, early death, or a sudden urge to emigrate, it’s up to you to try and support your suspicions, not up to me to set your mind at rest. You could play that game forever, with every single piece of unwelcome information that comes your way. Your next step should be to check the microfilms yourself, to see whether your suspicions were justified or not.
Hi Jeff, Sir Robert,
It is my understanding that if a modern hoaxer was able to make up or obtain ‘a proper ferro-gallic ink’ (or as Melvin used to describe it, a plain iron-gall ink), there would be no tell-tale modern ingredients. Alec Voller stated in October 1995:
At the very start you need the right ink and where are you going to get the right ink… This is where a forger would run into difficulties. There has never been a lot of literature on the subject of writing inks*… [it] tends to be written by experts for other experts and a certain amount of knowledge is assumed… very often, for example, literature of that sort does not always give complete formulations… Even if you can find something that gives you a complete formulation I have yet to see one that tells you how to put it together… it’s like making a cake…
*Shirley adds this footnote:
In pre World War II days, there were any number of very small ink manufacturers run by people who were owner-manager and chemist rolled into one. Each had his own jealously guarded secret formulation, not to be revealed to anyone else. This is one of the reasons there is so little literature on the subject of writing inks. Few people were willing to share information.
According to Voller, there would still have to be a preservative in a proper ferro-gallic ink:
If one assumes the ink is genuinely old, as I do, you are left only with phenol. Phenol is not too difficult to test for… the problem is quantity… you are talking about very, very minute amounts.
I think we’ll have to ask Mr Poster whether it’s possible to test for sugar, and whether previous analyses should have detected if anyone had added a modern spoonful to help the medicine go down.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
Morning sir Robert
I have made some enquiries about the sugar. I'm afraid it seems unclear where Barrett made this claim or which ink he was talking about but probably later when talking to journalists
In his sworn affidavit, the only detailed written account of the conception and execution of the forgery he’s ever made and in which he described the sales procedure at Outhwaite and Litherland, the auctioneers where he claims to have bought the memento book, and who later claimed never to have used the procedure described, Barrett says he bought Diamine manuscript ink. He does not mention putting sugar into it.
I have been giving thought...it would be interesting to know if MR Poster would have any idea if sugar would show up. Although sugar is sugar it is an organic substance so I assume that if it was found in enough quantity it could be carbon dated. But in a solution like ink I have no idea.
My guess is it is another Barrett embroider and you will find no sugar.
I think it is a red herring but it is interesting why Barrett might say such a thing...he must have at least gotten the idea from somewhere. I can find nothing on the net which specifically talks about putting sugar in ink.
When we were kids we used to make treasure maps at my aunties. We used to sock them in vinegar and bake them. (cant remember how long) but the effect was to make them look old.
Perhaps its something he did as a kid...or may be he found a book. It would be interesting if anybody has ever seen a book detailing this information. Who knows perhaps it was on Blue Peter.
I'm afraid I've draw a blank for now.
Yours Jeff
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
If you suspect that all ten Hammersmith examples from the 1871 census may have fallen victim to mistranscription, early death, or a sudden urge to emigrate, it’s up to you to try and support your suspicions, not up to me to set your mind at rest. You could play that game forever, with every single piece of unwelcome information that comes your way.
I am not the one "playing a game".
I pointed out that the names you have had provided to you, from a notoriously inaccurate transcript, are not found on the much more highly regarded index of the census ten years later.
I suggested that they may have (1) died, (2) emigrated, (3) been mistranscribed. Can you think of an alternative explanation for the discrepancy?
It's very tiresome that every time you present some bit of evidence that clearly involves problems and needs to be checked further, you refuse to do so, and chant your new mantra, "I'm not going to do your work for you".
Anyone would think we were in the kindergarten!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
If i recall correctly the 'Hamersmiths' on the 1881 census were actually called Hamilton.
Hamilton is not an uncommon name -unlike Hammersmith, a day that did not exist in 1881 in England at all.
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi Chris G and Chris P and Jenni and everyone,
I get your point about the fruit, Chris. And I think the odd fruit is fairly well piled up in this melodramatic joke of a text.
But why do I have the feeling that an old hoax theory, when faced with the still missing Mrs. Hammersmith in Liverpool in 1888, is going to end up saying to us “well, maybe there’s just something we don’t know about yet…?”
Of course, that’s what we’re going to hear because it’s once again the only explanation the old hoax theory has for all the difficulties in the text, without exception. In each and every case, that’s all the dream of an old hoax can offer.
So let’s do a little review. Just for fun.
Some reasons why the new hoax theory is the logical choice...
There IS a Poste House in Liverpool in modern times (we know that for sure).
The TinMBE line and the rest of the inventory were in a modern Ripper book (we know that for sure).
Dr. Baxendale confirms that there are modern letter formations mixed into the handwriting (we know that for sure).
Mike was the first one to give us both the Crashaw quote and tell us about the Sphere Guide (we know that for sure).
The people who brought the book forward have lied about where it came from since the beginning (we know that for sure).
It's over ten years and there is still no verifiable provenance for the book (we know that for sure).
Of all of these (and more), how many can the old hoax theory explain using stuff they know for sure?
None.
That’s right. Not a single one.
In each and every one of these cases, where there is evidence to support a modern hoax theory, the old hoax dream can only say, “well, maybe there’s something we just don’t know about.”
It’s a dream based entirely on what we don’t know.
As opposed to an evidenced theory based on what we do know.
And that hasn’t changed one bit in the past two weeks (or years).
The old hoax dream still can’t explain any of the textual difficulties.
And so it tries to offer hopes and wishes for each single one, hoping that no one will notice the cumulative effect. One poster actually wrote here, while I was away:
“Of all the textual 'errors', the Poste House is the weakest link to build a theory around.”
But as any student of logic and induction knows, you don't build a theory around a single piece of evidence or a single "link." That's the whole point. A theory is developed when all the ideas or links are taken together. And in this case, when ALL the ideas or links in the text are taken together, the modern hoax theory accounts for ALL of them with documents, evidence, and simple common sense answers and the old hoax dream cannot account for any of them with anything but prayer. Perhaps that’s why it’s never been written down.
Just a reminder of the state we’re still in,
--John
PS: Jeff and Mr. Poster – Nice to see you guys are still here. I hope your desire to finally have the diary thoroughly and properly tested scientifically, using labs with all the latest technologies, is getting closer to being fulfilled. You have my best wishes for all of your efforts and for good luck along the way.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Just a thought here,
saying the Hammersmiths on the 1871 census are real, which i am not doing, but just for fun saying they are, the census returns would not have been available until 1971 right?
Jenni |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 977
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Jenni
They would have been released on 1 January 1972.
But the name clearly didn't come from the census, because it's only just now being indexed.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Chris,
thanks
Jenni
ps the five word rule. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Chris--Above is the alleged Yorkshire Hammersmiths from 1871. The name is supposed to be 'Thomas Hammersmith.' Looks like something-worth to me. Of course, even if this was his name, finding a Hammersmith in Yorkshire in 1871 is hardly...
ah, well. I don't think I need to finish that thought. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
RJ
thanks.
I wouldn't like to say what that says!
Jenni |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 2:12 am: |
|
Hello
1) I imagine flouride would be fairly easy to determine but you would probably need a reasonable size ink dot (a blot rather than a dot) and I am assuming it would have remained on the paper after the water evaporated. But thats assuming it has not volatilised or something!
2. Do modern sugars come with anti-caking agents and if so what are they?
3. I imagine the sugar would leave a huge amount of carbon in the ink which is probably detectable. But a sugar solution would have left a hell of a mess on the pages surely? All sticky and tacky? With mould growing on the sugar traces? Just a thought.
4. If the constituents described by Harrison for modern Diamine manuscript ink can be found in the same ratios as in the diary ink on the page, that could indicate a newish ink? I assume antique ink or ink that had dried out for a hundred years may exhibit different ratios? Some of the constituents mentioned should be measurable even today.
Just finished the Skinner/Morris/Linder book. Its a shocking description of coming apart at the seams from drinking too much.
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Hello
As the carbon seems to be causing problems......
You can test for carbon. Both inorganic and organic. The problem is the paper which is carbon based. My opinion would be that in analytical terms, ink with sugar in it would, if only the carbon in the ink could be analysed, would have massive amounts of carbon (relative to ink with no sugar in it) and that would be a give away. I still think that if there was sugar in the ink, you would see "frosting" or crusts or particles on the page.
Anyway, the usual test for sugar is polarimetry. Sugar molecules in solution cause polarised light shone through the solution to turn by an angle. For a given length of solution at a given tempearture and for a given wavelength, the angle by which the polarised light is turned is proportional to the amount of sugar present.
Get some paper from the diary with ink and some with no ink. Macerate them in distilled water, set up a calibration curve and test the solutions with a polarimeter. IF both give the same degree of turn then there is probably no sugar in the ink.
Thats a simplistic presentation. Given the spotlight that diary world creates, the test would have to be conducted very carefully and evaluated.
And samples could not be taken with a straightened paperclip. Jeeeez..........
Carbon is not hard to test for. Proving the carbon came from Mikes table sugar is a different matter maybe....
Mr Poster |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 978
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
R. J. Palmer
Above is the alleged Yorkshire Hammersmiths from 1871. The name is supposed to be 'Thomas Hammersmith.' Looks like something-worth to me.
Thanks very much.
It's rather mind-boggling how anyone could have transcribed that surname as "Hammersmith" - it's clearly much too short.
You are quite right. Medley H....worth is not hard to find in FreeBMD and the online indexes to both the 1881 and 1901 censuses. In all three, the name is HAINSWORTH, which seems correct to me.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
"But a sugar solution would have left a hell of a mess on the pages surely? All sticky and tacky? With mould growing on the sugar traces? Just a thought. "
As a layman, I would have thought so. A question -- just what would sugar be intended to do in terms of making ink appear to be aged? It's not the sort of thing I'd think to add, but then again I'm not involved in document forgery!
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 979
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
the name is HAINSWORTH
The sad thing is that we've just seen a repetition of precisely the same kind of flawed methodology that we had over Turgoose's opinion about the order of the scratches on the watch.
Again, Caroline Morris has posted some evidence (in this case some extracts from an inaccurate transcript of the 1871 census), reached a conclusion and stated it as a fact ("the name was known in England"). And when the obvious problems with the evidence have been pointed out to her, again she has retorted that it is up to the questioner to sort it out - despite the facts that it was she who brought it up in the first place, and it was she who made a claim based on it.
In this case we can be thankful that R. J. Palmer could spare the time to do Caroline Morris's research for her.
Chris Phillips
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 2:08 am: |
|
Hello
A question -- just what would sugar be intended to do in terms of making ink appear to be aged? It's not the sort of thing I'd think to add, but then again I'm not involved in document forgery!
Is it possible that a really really stupid person might think, having read about how to alter carbon ages using "old" carbon, that he could hope to confuse possible tests by adding "carbon", in this case sugar?
Which a really really stupid person might think could confuse tests or something? Otherwise, adding sugar is a really strange thing to come out with. Par for the course really.
And I have a question for the Hammersmith thing.
Is it at all possible that "Mrs Hammersmith" could be in the same category as "Lipski", ie. a derisory term, based perhaps on the usage of "Mrs Hammersmith" in perhaps, a common piece of music hall doggerel or something? The author seems to like calling people names and if for example, in a play or something, there had been a nosey Mrs Hammersmith character, he might possibly refer to a nosey neighbour as "Mrs Hammersmith"?
In the same way that I recently heard someone say "Oh God, here comes Larry Grayson" when who they meant was someone of similar characteristics. In a 100 years however, Mr Grayson may not be remembered and there are no Graysons living in my town.
Just a fanciful thought.
Mr Poster |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Hi Mr Poster
I'm not convinced if Barrett or any modern hoaxer for that matter, would have given great consideration to people testing the ink or giving it to much scrutiny.
There had been a number of forgeries before the Maybrick diary and no chemical analisis had been done to them. Indeed it wasnt until Barrett was apparently writing a story on 'how a great forger he was' that Barrett seems to have given the problem much thought himself.
My guess is something much more simple: He'd heard someone suggesting mixing sugar with paint or ink to created an effect.
I know painters mixed all soughts of things into paint to creat differant effects. We used to add lemon juice but I cant remember why? also egg white..but never sugar.
I have been trawling for a reason someone might add sugar but have found nothing yet.
My guess is it was a throw away line.
I dont beleive Barrett or any Modern Hoaxer gave much thought to chemical analysis of the ink. As there was no such history of fake documents being tested in this way, why would they?
Thats why it is strange that know obvious contaminates have shown up so far.
If we are dealing with a Modern Hoaxer then we're dealing with a lucky son of a........
I dont think sugar would have been added to trick scientists. I dont think the forger even considered them, why should he?
My guess is you will find no traces of sugar, its another Barrett attempt to prove himself, a journey into fantacy. Of course I'm guessing....Jenni if you have any ink samples left try using a diabeties litmus test.
And if it is there, it will prove nothing...the die hard pro-diary camp will claim Maybrick used sugar to calm the effects of arsnic.
Anyway I will keep my ears open for a sugar ink solution....(for give pun)
Jeff
PS Think your Hammeersmith idea, good, Music hall songs are surely the place to check. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
"Is it possible that a really really stupid person might think, having read about how to alter carbon ages using "old" carbon, that he could hope to confuse possible tests by adding "carbon", in this case sugar?
Which a really really stupid person might think could confuse tests or something? Otherwise, adding sugar is a really strange thing to come out with. Par for the course really. "
Mr. Poster, it sounds to me that claiming he added sugar to the ink further discredits the notion of Barrett as hoaxer, or beliefs that he took part in the conspiracy. He's clueless as to how this thing was created.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
The fact that Mike Barrett lies repeatedly about this book certainly does not discredit the notion of Mike as hoaxer.
But, as an unrelated aside, I'd love to have you on my jury. If all I have to do to get you to believe that I did not do something is confess and tell a long list of lies about how I did it, I'd be home by dinner time.
In any case, let's try and claim only what logic allows us to claim -- and that is, in this case, that Barrett compulsively lies and therefore we cannot know what he might or might not have actually done or how clueless he might or might not actually be about where this book came from.
Still, it was a good try,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
John
Barrett lies....yes undoubtedly
Barett is a compulsive liar..harder to quantify.
Barrett was an alchoholic suffering from depression...........more sensible conclusion.
Barrett wrote the Maybrick Diary?...now theres a million Euro question.
Logic would dictate so.....but the evidence would suggest...otherwise.
Fact is we dont know, so back to the ink.
Jeff
Now if someone could convince Barrett to take a lie detector test and clear his name, what an interesting can of worms that would open. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Sir Bob--Barrett is crazy all right, crazy like a fox. He also claimed he slapped a raw kidney against the Diary's cover. Are we supposed to test for that, too?
John--If you do undergo the knife, you probably won't miss much while you're gone. We don't do anything useful here. Just poke around for Hammersmiths in Yorkshire, and the like. Good luck to you. RP
P.S. I heard a rumor that Bruce Robinson has signed a deal, and a Maybrick film is going to be made. Can anyone confirm this? |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
"Barrett is crazy all right, crazy like a fox."
I see little evidence of cleverness on the man's behalf. I'm not saying the Diary is the product of an especially clever hoaxer, but Barrett just comes off as a dope, irrespective of what mental problems he may suffer from.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 616
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Barrett just comes off as a dope.
Exactly.
Of course, once upon a time, we were all assured he was just an honest, ordinary Liverpool chap. It was only after he confessed that he was suddenly a buffoon, incapable of this literary masterwork. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
"It was only after he confessed that he was suddenly a buffoon, incapable of this literary masterwork."
I realize you're being sarcastic, but the Diary is obviously not a literary work of note; even with the bar set that low I don't think Barrett could have authored it.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1511
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Evidence. You need evidence. We only know of two people who have ever owned the diary (other than its current owner, who bought it from them).
Until you can offer even a single piece of evidence that in some way links the book to someone else, anyone else, that remains all we know about where it's been.
By the way, are you still pretending I'm not here? I forgot to check.
--John
PS: Thanks, RJ. Yes, I heard a similar rumor. I wonder who the technical adviser/researcher might be for such a project? That might be a question of some interest. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1744
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
It was you who claimed the ten Hammersmiths my little bird sent me from the 1871 census probably did not exist. It was you who had to back up your claim or withdraw it, and RJ was doing your research for you, to start the process of eliminating each of those Hammersmiths.
You also claimed:
No births or marriages in FreeBMD,
but my little bird has found the following in FreeBMD, which you may like to try eliminating yourself this time:
Deaths Mar 1841
HAMMERSMITH Ann
Kensington
Marriages Dec 1856
HAMMERSMITH George William
Stepney
Deaths Dec 1866
HAMMERSMITH Henrietta
Mile End
Births Mar 1868
HAMMERSMITH Augustus Johanna
Mile End
Deaths Mar 1868
HAMMERSMITH Augusta J
HAMMERSMITH Hermenn
Mile End
Deaths Dec 1880
HAMMERSMITH Ellen
HAMMERSMITH Sophia
Hackney
Marriages Sep 1883
HAMMERSMITH Minnie
Hackney
Births Mar 1897
HAMMERSMITH Harry
Mile End
Marriages Mar 1908
HAMMERSMITH Charles
Pancras
Births Jun 1909
HAMMERSMITH Charles Joseph
Pancras
I am not claiming a Mrs Hammersmith was living in Liverpool in 1888. I am simply suggesting that you may be wrong in thinking that the surname didn't exist in England. That's all.
Have a great weekend.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 13, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
To find a surname more rare than Maybrick, that is really going some.
(Message edited by jdpegg on May 13, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:29 am: |
|
Caroline Morris writes:
I am not claiming a Mrs Hammersmith was living in Liverpool in 1888.
Nor, apparently, is anyone else. Because it seems that no one can find any evidence to support such a claim.
But...
Maybe there's just something we don't know about yet.
Sound familiar?
Basing a theory on what we don't know, rather than on the long list of other things we do -- it's obviously the only way to advance any old hoax dream.
Now just before I left the boards, I had asked one poster here five simple questions concerning the old hoax dream. It's been a few weeks, and of course, no one has been able to answer them.
So here they are again. Let's see if anyone who thinks the diary is likely to be an old hoax will even try. I seriously doubt it.
To anyone interested:
Do you have any actual evidence whatsoever to indicate that the police list used in the diary's composition was available to the general public before 1987?
Can you name me one thing anywhere in the diary that can be considered evidence that the book is an old one?
Please offer your material evidence for someone like Mike Barrett or Anne Graham being finally excluded from at least possible authors. I know the real, material evidence for the names James Maybrick and Jack the Ripper being excluded. What finally and definitively allows you to include the people who brought the diary forward, for instance?
What do you think it is fair to conclude, strictly logically, from the fact that Mike Barrett's confession is full of problems and he has never told us the truth about where the book came from?
Is there any believable old hoax scenario that explains ALL the textual difficulties previously listed using rational evidenced explanations the way a modern scenario does?
So far, no one has been able to answer these simple questions in any deliberate, detailed, or convincing way (or even in any way at all).
That tells us plenty about the state of any old hoax dream.
And the list of questions is not even complete -- it doesn't point out the existence of the precise name of a strictly modern pub or the fact that Mike was able to identify the Crashaw quote for everyone using a modern source or the fact that the handwriting contains modern letter formations or the fact that a full decade later the diary still has no verifiable provenance whatsoever beyond Mike and Anne having it.
We know the book's a fake. Even Caroline has admitted that. We know there is material textual evidence (I cited a list here only yesterday) in favor of it being a modern text. When presented with the same set of textual difficulties, all we get from the old hoax dream is "maybe there's just something we don't know about yet." Each and every time. For every single item. And here we get it again in this discussion. Even as a modern hoax scenario offers simple, evidenced, common sense answers for all of them.
Now I am sure that those who still think the book is likely to be an old hoax rather than a modern one are responsible and forthcoming thinkers and I'm sure they would never simply refuse to participate in a discussion about these problems or simply ignore my posts hoping I'll go away soon and they won't have to deal with the state of the the textual evidence. Such games of "pretend he's not there and maybe the facts will go away with him," if they were to be played out as a last desperate attempt not to face the truth, would themselves indicate to all attentive readers everything they would need to know about the case for an old hoax and about all of us participating here in this discussion.
So let's see what happens. Let's see if anyone can make a coherent and responsible case, using the text itself, for an old hoax. Let's see if anyone can answer those five simple questions.
Watch carefully,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on May 13, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 983
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
OK, to be brief:
(1) You know that I did not say, as you claim, that the Hammersmiths whose details you posted "probably did not exist".
This is what I really wrote:
Of course, they may all have died or emigrated during the 1870s. However, no doubt you know that the Ancestry index is notoriously inaccurate, so it may be that these too are mistranscriptions.
(2) You imply that my statement "No births or marriages in FreeBMD" was untrue.
But you know that I was not referring to Hammersmiths in general, but to the dubious ones from 1871 census index whose details you had posted. If the 6 words are restored to their context this is perfectly clear:
There seems to be a problem with these Hammersmiths that someone supplied to Caroline Morris from the Ancestry.com 1871 census index.
No births or marriages in FreeBMD, and no entries in the 1881 census index. I think we have to be sceptical unless the entries can be confirmed on microfilm.
In case you were really incapable of grasping that, in the very previous line I included a link to the post in which I had already spelled this out to you:
This possibility [mistranscription] is strengthened by the fact that none of them [the 10 Hammersmiths in the 1871 index] appears in the FreeBMD index, though 7 of the 10 fall within the period it covers (admittedly it is not a complete index, but it's surprising that none of the 7 appears).
Can you please stop doing this sort of thing?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
Well Chris,
we know why they weren't don't we? Their name was Hainsworth.
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on May 13, 2005)
(Message edited by jdpegg on May 13, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 984
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I am not claiming a Mrs Hammersmith was living in Liverpool in 1888. I am simply suggesting that you may be wrong in thinking that the surname didn't exist in England.
Well, I have already said "Admittedly it's difficult to be sure that there were no "resident" Hammersmiths in England in 1888."
But what we do know is that there are none in the 1881 census index.
I don't see anything in the entries from FreeBMD to indicate the likelihood of there being any Hammersmiths in 1888.
You will see that there is only one birth in the more than 60-year period up to 1909, and that is "Augustus Johanna Hammersmith", registered at Mile End in the first quarter of 1868. I presume this is actually the same person as "Augusta J Hammersmith" whose death was registered at Mile End in the same quarter, aged 0.
Other than that, only two Hammersmiths are shown who could have been alive and named Hammersmith in 1888.
First, George William Hammersmith who married in Stepney in 1856. But we know he doesn't appear in the 1881 census index, so the odds are he was dead and/or gone by 1888.
Second, Charles Hammersmith who married in 1908. But he is absent from the 1901 census index, on which the only two Hammersmiths are children aged 6 and 4. (The 1901 transcription is also known to be very inaccurate, so this has to be used with caution.)
If somebody does think this is sufficiently important to follow up, of course the relevant census to look at would be 1891, not 1871. But if Hammersmiths are found there, I would recommend checking that the transcript is correct.
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
Is there any believable old hoax scenario that explains ALL the textual difficulties previously listed using rational evidenced explanations the way a modern scenario does?
John dont you think your rathr playing Don Quixote hear. Your charging windmills claiming they are giants.
The fact is in all the research I have done to date, I have come across NO old hoax theories or at least an advocate of an old Hoax theory willing to stand up and defend their position.
The problem with all your contextural problems are that they are just that PROBLEMS. They should make anybody look up and say hay that seems odd.yes.
However what they are NOT...not a single one...is a hammer blow which catigorically prove the diary is a fake. You can all Ham it up about Hammersmith to your hearts contents...but it proves and does Nothing...
You are still no closer to prove who and when the diary was writen.
What I'm being told, and it makes sence, is that if you want to make a Modern Hoax claim then its up to the Modern Hoax advocists to prove there piont...which they have clearly failed to do.
If there is NO old hoax advocists, how can you expect them to defend a position that doesnt exist?
Surely the people pionting holes in the Modern Hoax theory are just doing that, pointing out that NOBODY knows for sure.
It is therefore correct to say:
The Maybrick diary is possibly a modern Hoax.
also
The Maybrick diary is possibly an old Hoax.
As nobody can prove a case either way. And as I have found NO old hoax theorists. (I'm interested in interveiwing one however if your reading) it is currently up to the people making the claims to prove their point.
If a modern Hoax theorist wishes to claim Barrett wrote the diary, which I know you dont, then its up to them to prove that point.
Until then charging windmills is a waste of time. No-one has to prove an old hoax theory until they have one.
It is up to the Modern Hoax theorists (if they also exist...which I think they do) to prove either Mike Barrett or Anna Graham forged the diary. (or another candidate.)
And the strangest thing is...I'm not completely sure they did...which is very odd..which is why this story is facinating.
But it just means I dont know and would like to know..
Not that I'm an advocist of any particular position. You cant fight people until they get into the ring and they wont until they have a position to defend.
Jeff
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Unlike the Knight of the Sorrowful Face, all the material evidence and rational (rather than romantic) thought in this case falls on my side. Having said that, I should mention that you have just invoked one of my literary heroes.
But I agree with you about this:
"The fact is in all the research I have done to date, I have come across NO old hoax theories or at least an advocate of an old Hoax theory willing to stand up and defend their position."
Yes.
Telling, isn't it?
Perhaps that's because they can't explain any of these problems the way a modern hoax theory does so easily.
Then you say, regarding the textual evidence,
"However what they are NOT...not a single one...is a hammer blow which catigorically prove the diary is a fake."
I assume you mean modern fake? We know the diary is a fake. It's not even in the right handwriting and it uses a police document the real Maybrick could not possibly have seen.
So I think what you were trying to say was that there is not a single textual item which categorically proves the diary is a modern fake.
But, as I have already explained elsewhere, that's not how inductive logic works. An accumulation of repeatedly indicative pieces of evidence allows for a simple, common sense and logical conclusion that remains perfectly valid. In each and every case here the textual evidence points in a single direction. There is no textual evidence whatsoever that points in the other direction. A theory is made up of a collection of pieces of evidence and every single one of them in this text points to a modern date of composition. Within a case of careful, logical reading such as this, the final proof is never in a single item, it's in the pattern.
You then ask me an excellent question:
"If there is NO old hoax advocists, how can you expect them to defend a position that doesnt exist?"
Fine.
If everyone here is willing to stipulate that they do not advocate the old hoax dream, then I will agree that such a thing remains ridiculous and that's why it doesn't exist.
Let's see if that happens.
I'm happily willing to agree that the old hoax dream does not exist, no one believes it and that there is no textual evidence whatsoever to support it in any case, unlike the modern hoax theory.
Everyone here join me in this?
(I'll bet I don't get answers from some, Jeff.)
Meanwhile, you say this, which is simply not true:
"It is up to the Modern Hoax theorists (if they also exist...which I think they do) to prove either Mike Barrett or Anna Graham forged the diary. (or another candidate.)"
Nope.
All a modern hoax theory has to do is demonstrate that the overwhelming material evidence indicates repeatedly that the text was composed in modern times. That's easy to do.
The opposite , citing textual evidence that demonstrates an old date of composition, is impossible (as we have clearly seen).
Once again, that's easy to do versus impossible to do -- a theory based on what we know for sure versus a theory based only on what we don't know.
A modern hoax theory only claims that the diary is a modern hoax -- that it was written in modern times. The diary mentions the specific name of an exclusively modern pub, it cites a text we know was available to the general public in a modern source, it includes modern letter formations in its handwriting, one of its discoverers was mysteriously able to identify a five word quotation using only a modern source, there is no record whatsoever of the book ever existing before modern times and the modern people who gave it to us have done nothing but lie about where it came from. Meanwhile, there is no evidence anywhere in the book that indicates it is old.
It's not windmills and it's not dragons I am chasing, Jeff. I am just reciting the evidence for those who have logical minds to make a simple and valid inductive conclusion.
The silence you hear from the old hoax dreamers (if any still exist) is a telling response to these issues.
Thanks for the chance to explain, Jeff. We'll have to just disagree about some of this, I guess.
All the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on May 13, 2005)
(Message edited by omlor on May 13, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
"I have come across NO old hoax theories or at least an advocate of an old Hoax theory willing to stand up and defend their position."
At the risk of setting off endless rounds of "you didn't answer my post that deliberately distorted what you just said", I'd say that there are several folks that favor the possibility that the Diary is older than generally thought. Does that mean it dates to the Victorian era? I take it to mean that it predates the Barretts' ownership, which gives us a wide range of possible dates.
This has all been discussed before, but the "old hoax" school of thought looks at the tests done to date, and while saying that further works needs to be done, point to the tests as indicating a degree of aging for the artifacts. And there are no textual "flaws" that haven't been rebutted at fair length on these boards.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
Well I'm not entirely sure we are disagreeing...
And yes it was drogons wasn't it.
What I am having problems understanding is your comparisson between the Modern Hoax theorists and a supposed renegade band of old hoax theorists, which I have simply been unable to uncover..so if I can use another of my dubious littery metophors...I'm becoming worried that we're blaming Snowball for everything thats wrong in Maybrick land.
The position seems to me to be split between Modern Hoax Theorists and people who are uncertain that the evidence exists to support such a position with what is currently known about the diary.
And yes we may again be in the dubious world of samantics, but PROBABLY is simply not the same as case PROVEN.
The diary mentions the specific name of an exclusively modern pub, it cites a text we know was available to the general public in a modern source, it includes modern letter formations in its handwriting, one of its discoverers was mysteriously able to identify a five word quotation using only a modern source, there is no record whatsoever of the book ever existing before modern times and the modern people who gave it to us have done nothing but lie about where it came from.
Again you deal out the same old stuff we've examined a thousand times before and again we have the enivitable answer. case NOT PROVEN.
And then we're left with the one position on which we all seem able to agree:
We need to come up with a new test on the diary that will finally solve the riddle once and for all.....And before undertaking those tests I beleive we have to stand with an open mind to all possibilities....otherwise why will anybody pay for or sponcre them?
Because the only thing I know for sure is that:
'I know I know nothing' me fav bit of aristotle. when it comes to the Maybrick Diary.
And no when I said the contextural evidence as to who when and where the diary was created proves NOTHING, and I realize I'm a lone voice of one heading for extiction on this one..thats actually what I meant....(its fun imagining some of you foaming at the mouth though.)
And OK its taken me longer than I ever thought to get this *loody pitch off the ground because its far more complicated than I ever imagined...
If you take the example of the casement Black Diaries you will realize that thousands of tests and hundreds of pounds have been poured into examining and proving they are..well real actually...but even so the case continues to rage and debate....its just simply bloody hard to prove either way...which is why testing needs to be approached with great caution.
I for one have know intension of charging in with size 20 boots and coming out with more questions than answers.
Anyway i think we're closer in acord than you might think. I'm just not prepared to say case proved until I know it is.
And far from being Advocates of an old hoax theory most of the experts I have spoken to simply dont beleive there is enough evidence to catigorically call the Maybrick diary a modern hoax yet. We need more evidence to be able to say that.
As this is an ink thread I also think it fair to say that I'm also not convinced by your number one forger suspect Mike Barrett. Other wise we'd have spotted more contamination in the ink. (not that I'm ruling him out that would be taking sides)
Anyway my position is simple: Case not proven, seek to find new tests that will finally give an answer. Hopefully we're agreed. Jeff
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 986
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Jeff
I think I've already made my position clear often enough that it doesn't need to be repeated again. But I can repeat it briefly.
I think there is evidence enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the hoax comes from the late 1980s, and that Mike Barrett was somehow involved (I have no idea what the nature of his involvement was).
I am thinking primarily of the "tin match box empty" and Barrett's identification of the Crashaw quotation. Any alternative explanations of these facts involve events of vanishingly small probability - far too unlikely for any criminal jury to concern itself about.
On top of that, I've still to be presented with any credible evidence that the diary is modern. (The best that's been done is to point to the watch, which is not much help because no one can point to any evidence - as opposed to unsupported opinion - that the watch isn't modern. And to cite Voller's contradictory opinion based on a brief visual examination of the ink - which, it turned out, was vitiated by his later admission that a modern test document showed similar fading and bronzing.)
Nevertheless, there are people who believe an old hoax is likely - I believe the poster calling himself "Sir Robert Anderson" is one of them. He can speak for himself, but - though I've heard his explanations of why this is possible (though the explanations are exceedingly improbable in my opinion) - I still don't understand he thinks this it is likely.
Beyond that, there are even people who think (or claim to think) that the diary is probably genuine. Robert Smith has expressed himself in these terms fairly recently on these boards. (Though perhaps it's no coincidence that he is the owner of the diary!)
Despite the impression you may have got, one person who doesn't think the diary is either genuine or old is Caroline Morris. Circa 2000, she was happy to say she thought it was clearly a fake, and even that Melvin Harris had all but proved that the hoax was modern, and that the "old hoax" theory lacked credibility. When invited recently to say whether her views had changed, she declined. So I think it's reasonable to assume she still believes it's a modern hoax, but tries to keep these discussions going for her own reasons.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
" I believe the poster calling himself "Sir Robert Anderson" is one of them. He can speak for himself, but - though I've heard his explanations of why this is possible (though the explanations are exceedingly improbable in my opinion) - I still don't understand he thinks this it is likely ."
You can fault my parents for the "Robert Anderson"...
I think that when you cut through to the heart of the Diary whodunnit, it comes to an up or down vote on Mike Barrett. NOT whether he is "truth challenged", but whether he authored it or was involved in some way with a conspiracy. NOTHING I have read in the various Diary books, nor articles in Ripperana or the Ripperologist, nor what I've seen on the Casebook, leads me to believe that Barrett is our man. I don't even believe he can lead us to the real hoaxers, either. That means, in my eyes, that the age of the Diary is very far from being determined.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 988
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Sir Robert
NOTHING I have read in the various Diary books, nor articles in Ripperana or the Ripperologist, nor what I've seen on the Casebook, leads me to believe that Barrett is our man.
At the risk of going over well-trodden ground, doesn't the fact that he was able to identify the Crashaw quotation even give you pause for thought?
I know you have formulated an alternative explanation involving a "tip off" from Shirley Harrison, to allow the hoax to be possibly old, but don't you think it's far likelier that Barrett was able to identify the quotation because he was involved in the hoax?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
NO!!!!!
Not the library (running away to revise!!)
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
"don't you think it's far likelier that Barrett was able to identify the quotation because he was involved in the hoax? "
I am extremely skeptical of what light the Crashaw quote sheds on Barrett's involvement, primarily because he has been unable to prove that he owned a copy of the Sphere book at the necessary time.
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.
|
|
|
|
