|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 6:13 am: | 
|
Hi All,
Of course, we do now know that the Old Post Office Pub, close to James Maybrick's boyhood home, was a pub back in 1800, and accompanied Liverpool's Post Office on an adjacent site.
In 1839 the Post Office moved elsewhere, but the pub remained, and by 1888 it was officially the Post Office Tavern.
I now know of three local people who have referred to this pub as the post house (although its modern nickname as at last year was the "HQ"), so there is no reason why it could not have been referred to as the post house at any time during the 19th century, and it very likely was.
The Diary of Samuel Pepys, written in the 17th century, gives us a bit of information about post houses.
Taken from the 1942 reprint of the edition published between 1893 and 1899:
Jan 16, 1661:
…and so by boat home and put on my boots, and so over to Southwarke to the posthouse, and there took horse and guide to Dartford…
Jan 17, 1661:1
…but we being merry, we bade my Lady good-night and intended to have gone to the Post-house to drink, and hear a pretty girl play of the cittern (and indeed we should have lain there, but by a mistake we did not)…
Jan 18, 1661:
The Captains went with me to the post-house about 9 o’clock, and after a morning draft I took horse and guide for London…
July 6, 1661:
So I made myself ready…and bought me a pair of boots in St.Martin’s…and then to the Post House and set out about eleven and twelve o’clock…
Dec 10, 1661:
To Whitehall, and there finding Mons. Eschar to be gone, I sent my letters by a porter to the posthouse in Southwark to be sent by dispatch to the Downs.
Aug 10, 1664:
…and by agreement with Captain Silas Taylor (my old acquaintance at the Exchequer) to the Post Office* to hear some instrument musique…
* [foot note presumably added in the 1890s]
The General Post Office was originally in Cloak Lane, Dowgate Hill, but was subsequently removed to the Black Swan, Bishopsgate. The latter place was destroyed in the Fire of London in 1666. There is no notice of these music meetings in the records of the Post Office.
Oct 5 1664:
Thence to the Musique-meeting at the Post-office, where I was once before.
Sept 4, 1666:
…and Paul’s is burned, and all Cheapside. I wrote to my father this night, but the post-house being burned, the letter could not go.*
* [foot note]
J.Hickes wrote to Williamson on September 3rd from the Golden Lyon, Red Cross Street Posthouse. Sir Philip [Frowde] and his lady fled from the [letter] office at midnight for safety…
More than two hundred years after Pepys was writing his diary, the formal identification of the posthouses/Post-houses/post-houses/Post Houses/Post Offices/Post-offices to which he referred, became an issue; and where appropriate, the official name of the establishment was given in foot notes. At the time of writing, Pepys would have seen no need to elaborate. But two hundred years on, his readers needed a little help with what and where these post houses had been.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Now I must post haste (not poste haste) into town myself, as I am taking refreshment in the Skylark. 
(Message edited by caz on July 05, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
I had hoped that following the inkling/inclination debacle, we could at least have had a break from bizarre literary speculation. Apparently not.
I think I'll resist the temptation to ask what earthly relevance the 17th-century diaries of Samuel Pepys - of which Caroline Morris has apparently discovered a searchable edition - could have to the acknowledged fake that is the Maybrick Diary.
Instead, I'll just ask again - as large sums of money are flowing towards Diary research in ways unusual enough that their source has to be kept secret - why not just settle the matter for once and for all by having the ink chemically analysed?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
"as large sums of money are flowing towards Diary research in ways unusual enough that their source has to be kept secret - "
Given how the researchers currently looking at the origins of the Diary would be treated on this message board, I don't blame them for not posting here. In an ideal situation, we'd have a forthright discussion about recent developments, but that's not going to happen. In my opinion, a loss for all sides.
BTW, please define "large sums of money" for us. I'd like us all to be on the same page vis a vis filthy lucre.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 4:42 am: |
|
Sir Robert
BTW, please define "large sums of money" for us.
That was a kind of joke. (It sounds as though you haven't heard Peter Cook's brilliant monologue "Entirely a Matter for You". It's well worth a listen.)
Naturally, all I know is what Caroline Morris has posted. From that, I don't get the impression that it's just peanuts.
But I think you've missed the point. It's not just that those involved are "not posting here". It's that the identity of the person behind this is so secret that Caroline Morris has completely clammed up in response to enquiries. (That's no mean achievement in itself - have you ever managed to get Caroline Morris to clam up?)
And, if significant amounts of money are available for research, why not just have the ink analysed?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1927
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
See my post on the other thread. You have absolutely nothing to contribute apart from assumption and rudeness concerning matters and people you admit to knowing nothing about - otherwise you wouldn't need to keep asking.
Give up - it can't be good for your blood pressure.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Well, I certainly don't feel like discussing this further at the moment.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
" It's that the identity of the person behind this is so secret that Caroline Morris has completely clammed up in response to enquiries"
The folks currently doing work on the origins of the Diary don't wish to participate in this forum. Given the environment you and your posse have created, it is perfectly understandable, but I also think that it is a pity.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1930
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Well, I still wish to participate despite everything. So I can see how it looks to Chris like it's just me clamming up. But really, the other folks who don't wish to come here to be called mad or bad (or variations of) are just as clammed up about it as I am.
But the clamming up has zero to do with 'awkward' questions from armchair theorists, and everything to do with a delicate investigation into what Chris believes are the forgery shenanigans of living people.
If Chris either can't or won't appreciate this, it's too bad.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I'm sorry, but I really don't feel in the mood to discuss this today, after the terrorist attacks in London.
Probably it needs pursuing at another time, but as far as I'm concerned, not today.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
We mustn't let the swines stop us in our tracks, if we don't have to. That's exactly what they wanted. But I do understand that it's not always easy. You didn't have to post at all - no one would have blamed you for staying off the boards yesterday.
Right then. I don't think I indulged in any 'literary speculation' with my Pepys post.
I was simply demonstrating that there is a tradition going back to this diarist's time at least, regarding post houses, their official names, and how they were referred to by those who frequented them.
The claim on these boards used to be that the Poste House in the diary had to be the pub's official name because it wouldn't have been capitalised if it was a nickname for, say, the Red Lion, the Black Swan - or the Post Office Tavern.
Pepys disproves that claim, and shows the diversity of the usage. Right up to date, there are people in Liverpool who think of the Old Post Office pub in School Lane as Liverpool's post house, or Post House - or even Poste House, if they also think it's poste haste. And a prominent sign in Victorian times would have been Poste Restante, which might easily have caused confusion over the other two spellings.
I call a book searchable if it has an index - or at least if the pages are not glued together and can be flicked through.  But it's nice to know my posts make you think, even if it's just another false assumption.
And you're all over the place now. How can you, with a straight face, claim that the diary is an acknowledged fake, while demanding a further chemical analysis, which you believe will 'settle the matter once and for all'?
In your opinion, there's nothing to settle, yet you demand that it be settled - in a scientific manner of your choosing, which you haven't even defined (what exactly would a further chemical analysis achieve, how and why?) for the people you expect to dance to your tune.
But you have also said that science could never provide the ultimate answer, giving everyone, including yourself, a perfect get-out clause if the results are again inconclusive, or don't suit.
So what's going on here?
Have a safe weekend, and I'll see you after my holidays - and hopefully, an explanation about this magical chemical analysis whose magic, according to you, will never be powerful enough to settle a damned thing.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
So what's going on here?
Just go back and read my previous posts, in which I have made it all perfectly clear.
I am really not going to play your pathetic games.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1935
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I know what you have written at different times.
You told us that science could never be the ultimate magic wand; you claimed that the diary is already an acknowledged fake, and was proved modern by AFI over ten years ago; yet you demand some sort of further chemical analysis which you refuse to define, and which you claim will do what all previous analyses have failed to do, and 'settle the matter once and for all'.
This is jumbled up junk, isn't it?
Love,
Caz
X |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 27
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Boring! What I can't understand is why Maybrick is No.1 suspect on this site - has someone been repeatedly clicking on vote? Come on now Caz!
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Very well, as you insist.
I know there is no point in my correcting your wilful misrepresentation of what I have said in the past, because it would only provide you with more material to misrepresent in the future.
The simple fact is that if people had any genuine interest in whether the fake is a new one or an old one, they could have the composition of the ink determined chemically. It would certainly settle the question of whether the ink contains chloroacetamide. It would allow a comparison with the known composition of Diamine ink. In all likelihood it would determine the first possible date at which the ink was available.
Not magic. Not "some sort of further chemical analysis which you refuse to define". Just absolutely standard forensic procedure in evaluating questioned documents.
The excuse for not doing this in the past is that the money wasn't available. Apparently that is no longer the case. So why not simply do it?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
"The excuse for not doing this in the past is that the money wasn't available. Apparently that is no longer the case. "
Yesterday you claimed that your statement that there were large sums of money available for Diary research was "kind of a joke". Yet you repeat your assertion today.
I am curious as to why you believe this. Well, actually, I don't believe you yourself believe most of what you post, but perhaps you are being sincere here. So I'll ask again: how much money do you believe is now available for Diary research ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
Sir Robert
I'll ask again: how much money do you believe is now available for Diary research ?
I am really not in the mood for this silliness.
How on earth do you think I would know this, considering Caroline Morris refuses point blank to answer any questions about the "ongoing investigation"?
Let's try and be a bit serious. Aren't you in the slightest bit curious yourself about why they haven't had the ink analysed?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Well, actually, I don't believe you yourself believe most of what you post, but perhaps you are being sincere here.
Oh, and if you're going to accuse me of lying, you'd better back it up.
Put up or shut up.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
"Oh, and if you're going to accuse me of lying, you'd better back it up."
Oh, THAT'S rich -- coming from someone that regularly accuses Caz of lying. Back THAT up.
I believe you post here with the sole goal of disrupting the conversation, and distorting the positions of others. Sad, really.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
HELLO ALL WOW, interesting reading, you are reminding me of how ridiculous and inmature i must sound when I get into a ruck with one not to be named person. I think i will do an e-mail and apologize. Thanks for showing me that at least. I think i had better get down to reading about the diary. Which book do you recommend. HAVE A GOOD DAY FOLKS "Gizmo" 
"Hey Rookie----You were good" (Field Of Dreams)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Sir Robert
If I were a liar myself, it would indeed be ironic when I pointed out the lies of others.
I am not a liar.
I really don't find this funny. Nor did I find it funny when you accused me of having libelled Robert Smith. Admittedly your accusation against Shirley Harrison - that she had secretly conspired with Mike Barrett to make it appear the diary was a fake - was too ludicrous for anyone to take seriously.
But surely you understand you can't just go around making accusations like this about people, without a shred of evidence?
Then again, perhaps for some reason you're just trying to divert attention away from my question - why not settle these questions about the diary by just having the ink analysed?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on July 08, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
"Admittedly your accusation gainst Shirley Harrison - that she had secretly conspired with Mike Barrett to make it appear the diary was a fake - was too ludicrous for anyone to take seriously. "
Ah, a perfect example of your distortions. That is not what I suggested, and you know it. I defy you to find a post by me in the archives that states that I ever suggested that scenario.
Not that you are interested in the truth. Pathetic and sad.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Well, here's a link to the post where you propounded that nonsense, in black and white:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=125936#POST125936
"I'm saying that Shirley Harrison tipped him off to the source and nature of the quotation."
But this really does have all the hallmarks of one of those desperate diversionary tactics, with which we're sadly too familiar here. When someone asks an awkward question, fling as many insults as you can at him - call him a liar, say he's "sad" and "pathetic".
Isn't it interesting that people are so desperate to avoid answering that question? And not only Caroline Morris this time, it appears. Why on earth should that be?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on July 08, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Hi Martin,
I don't know. But I don't think anyone should be able to vote more than once for the same suspect - if they can, the whole thing is a pointless shambles to begin with.
Hi Chris,
You may have missed it, but I did remind you that Robert has made it clear that he is happy to release the diary for any tests that can be researched, organised and funded by an independent third party - one who believes that such a test could settle the matter once and for all.
I have no idea why you feel you can dictate what other people do with their money. But since science is not, according to you, the absolute be all and end all anyway, perhaps those with money to spare would agree, and would choose to channel it into other areas. But that's surely for them to know and you to find out.
At least you now admit that the chloroacetamide question was never settled. But I think the idea that the ink could turn out to contain enough of the stuff to be Diamine rather fanciful.
You need someone with money to burn who actually believes, on the basis of previous examinations, that this is a realistic prospect, and who truly wants to see the diary debate ended.
The claim here is that the ink is modern. That claim has yet to be tested and proved by someone making it.
Do you know anyone who fits the bill?
Love,
Caz
X |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Gee, Chris - where in that thread do I say anything that supports your distortion ? Where is there any reference to a conspiracy ? Where is there any basis for a claim that Shirley wanted the Diary branded a fake ?
"Admittedly your accusation against Shirley Harrison - that she had secretly conspired with Mike Barrett to make it appear the diary was a fake - was too ludicrous for anyone to take seriously. "
You've exposed yourself for what you are.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Your post contains a number of false statements about what I've said. As I wrote earlier, I'm not going to bother to correct them, for obvious reasons. The faster they are corrected, the faster they keep coming ...
I will just point out that you have absolutely no basis in fact for your claim that the ink is unlikely to contain enough chloroacetamide to be Diamine. The fallacy of this claim has been pointed out to you time and time again, and still you keep posting it. (To think you pretend to be affronted when you are described as a liar!)
Now, in words of as few syllables as possible, what I am asking is this:
If the people behind this ongoing investigation are really interested in finding out the truth about the diary, why have they not taken the obvious and straightforward step of having the ink chemically analysed?
I should have thought it was a simple enough question to answer if there is a good reason for it, but I have asked it something like a dozen times now, and all I'm getting is the usual feeble evasions.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Chris, guys,
honestly this is really getting pointless beyond belief!
Jenni
"By the power of Greyskull - I have the power!"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
Well, if anyone is paying any attention to you, I have given them the opportunity of judging whether my description was fair.
What you should understand is that you don't call somebody a liar because you say something ludicrous, and then are embarrassed by the terms in which it is discussed.
Now, if you're really interested in discussing the diary, why don't you give the name-calling and insults a rest, and give us your thoughts on why anyone who was interested in knowing the truth about the diary would decide against having the ink chemically analysed?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
"Well, if anyone is paying any attention to you, I have given them the opportunity of judging whether my description was fair. "
Let me translate for those playing along at home : you got called out on your misrepresentation - a deliberate one at that - and are trying to dance around your own soiled mess. I welcome debate on what I actually said/believe; fabricating your opponent's position is cowardice.
Not a pretty picture.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
What everyone needs to realise is that just saying something doesn't make it true!
"By the power of Greyskull - I have the power!"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1937
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I wrote:
But I think the idea that the ink could turn out to contain enough of the stuff to be Diamine rather fanciful.
That's not based on the science - the science has yet to be settled, as you yourself admitted. It's based in part on the fact that I don't believe for one second that Mike knows a thing about the ink or where it came from. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
The ink has been chemically analysed. It's totally misleading to suggest otherwise. And it's your opinion that another one is the best way forward, and that it would settle the matter once and for all.
He who pays the piper calls the tune - and decides who else hears it.
If I were the one paying, you'd be the last person I'd have telling me what to do. And the last person I'd keep informed.
If you can't take any criticism, don't dish out insult after insult.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
I would rather have not had this discussion today, but you seemed determined to do so.
So why the hell can't you answer a simple question?
Why not have the composition of the diary ink determined by chemical analysis - as is standard forensic procedure for questioned documents?
If, rather than doing this, the conclusions of this vaunted investigation are really going to be based "in part on the fact that I don't believe for one second that Mike knows ..." and such like, they're not going to advance our knowledge of anything by very much.
Chris Phillips
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 9:15 am: |
|
Just absolutely standard forensic procedure in evaluating questioned documents.
Its not really. Ive never heard of chloroacetamide being such a bone of contention in any other questioned document case.
The general method used in determining it is a standard forensic procedure. The determination of chloroacetamide in ink is not a standard forensic procedure. If you see my point.
Theres no point putting an angle on it like "its a standard procedure that has not been applied".
But I have to admit thats its cool to see the "modern hoax" people call for such an analysis too. As given the fact that such weight was put on its "presence", if its abscence is confirmed, it will be a real puzzler.
INteresting that the "new" Himmler Letters have been exposed as a modern hoax (laser printed letterheads!). Once again another hoax falls and yet this "hoax" still hasnt been exposed beyond doubt. Which makes it worthy of discussion.
Mr Poster |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1938
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Yet another false assumption about the ongoing investigation, which I won't be correcting because, as I've already told you, your need to know is not considered to be a priority.
You are welcome to your opinions, but the course which the investigation takes, and what is considered worth funding (and indeed, what can be funded), is not up to you.
And moaning and hurling insults from the sidelines, at anyone who doesn't see things quite as you do, won't make a hap'orth of difference.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Maybe I should start counting how many times I've asked the question now, without it being answered.
Before giving another kneejerk response, please just read what I'm about to post very carefully, and make sure you understand what I'm asking. I'll help you with a little emphasis:
Why not have the composition of the diary ink determined by chemical analysis - as is standard forensic procedure for questioned documents?
Chris Phillips
PS Mr Poster. I didn't say anything about the detection of chloroacetamide in ink being a standard forensic procedure.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1941
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 5:06 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Why not indeed? It has been, and for all you know, it might be again. Your question is nonsensical because I have never said anything to suggest the ink hasn't, or shouldn't have been, analysed, and I have even suggested how it can and will be again, if arranged by any independent third party.
And in case you still haven't grasped it, you will not be told what are, or what are not, considered worthwhile ways of investigating, by those of us putting the work in, until the work is finished. So your question is doubly irrelevant.
Have you learned nothing from the Platt tests experience, which were going on all the while cynics regularly accused Robert Smith of never again letting the diary out of his sight? Do you really want to follow that path that led to almost universal condemnation?
Hi Sir Robert,
Chris is a nightmare. In case you missed it, over on another thread he took a selective quote from one of my posts and used it to accuse me of being a 'compulsive liar'. The very next words of my post - which he failed to quote - proved that I hadn't lied.
Deliberate, transparent cheating: no shame, no concession when he is quickly exposed; just more trumped-up character assassination.
And then he whimpers when he is rightly called a cheat.
What a way to defend a theory, if it is supposed to practically defend itself.
Take care, Sir Robert, and I'll see you soon. If the posting rules are there for any purpose at all, something will surely be done about Chris's blatantly false and filthy accusations eventually. He is the worst offender I've seen in months.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on July 09, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
You really have lost it, haven't you?
As I have said, I am not going to correct any of you lies about me, because you apparently have an inexhaustible supply of them. The more you scream and shout, and blurt out insults and threats, the more determined I am not to respond in kind.
Now, back to the question about ink testing. After evading the question more than a dozen times, you now - for the first time - say that the ink "might" be tested again.
It's difficult to tell what that is supposed to mean (your grammar isn't quite as correct as you'd obviously like to believe). But if anything, it means that well over a year into the "ongoing investigation", no such test has been done yet.
And as your previous evasions have included such gems of ignorance and confusion as "it already has been tested", I don't think too many people will be fooled by this latest dodge.
But one thing is clear. Caroline Morris's reflex reaction is to use any and all tactics to pour scorn on any constructive suggestion for establishing the truth about the diary. If the ink ever is analysed, it will obviously be despite her determination to ridicule the very idea of scientific investigation.
And I hope we've at least heard the last of her teasing comments about the "ongoing", for the time being.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on July 09, 2005) |
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
CAZ, SIR ROBERT AND CHRIS. As you can tell by my rank I am an extreme novice or rookie so to speak with regards with regards to J.T R. This does not deter me from trying to learn more through reading all the literature i can get my hands on. I am impressed with the wealth of knowledge illustrated by practically all the members of this site but some of the innuendo,sarcasm, accusations and hurtful comments gets in the way of positive research. In a roudabout way, i said in an earlier post which probably went unheeded, "BURY THE HATCHET". NO! this is not a holier than thou speech,its just a friendly attempt to get people to put a more positive perspective on all issues on the casebook. THANKS FOR LISTENING(?) "Gizmo"
"Hey Rookie----You were good" (Field Of Dreams)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1944
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Hi Ken, All,
Chris lied:
But one thing is clear. Caroline Morris's reflex reaction is to use any and all tactics to pour scorn on any constructive suggestion for establishing the truth about the diary. If the ink ever is analysed, it will obviously be despite her determination to ridicule the very idea of scientific investigation.
What did Baxendale do?
What did Eastaugh do?
What did AFI do?
What did Leeds do?
What did the Rendell team do?
What did Platt do?
The investigation, including scientific analysis, has been 'ongoing' since 1992.
I have been helping out as and when I can since 2000, and the aim is naturally to establish the truth about the origins of the diary and watch.
What has Chris done, apart from pouring scorn on everyone else's efforts, about which he knows precious little, and makes up for his admitted ignorance with false assumption after false assumption?
I don't know why he's so hot under the collar about it. If the diary is the modern hoax he truly believes it to be, our investigations can only be helping to confirm it: slowly, carefully and as thoroughly as befits anything in which Keith Skinner is involved.
Chris should be sitting back in his deckchair, with a cool drink and a good book, smiling as he waits for the inevitable to happen, and for his theory to be proved by the workers.
Instead, he comes here for more punishment - or should I say, correction. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
OK. If you claim that the ink has already been adequately analysed, here's a simple question you should be able to answer immediately.
What concentration of chloroacetamide does the diary ink contain?
Chris Phillips
|
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
HELLO EVERYONE, I have just finished reading the thread "DIARY TESTING" It was quite informative until Steven put his foot down. Quite frankly i did not see any thing remotely objectionable compared to this thread. With regards to the concentration of chloroacetamide how precise does one have to be to legitamise fake or fact. Does the report stating "a very small amount" not lend credence to a good possibility that the ink was of Victorian time. DUH ! What do I know ? CHEERS EVERYONE "Gizmo"
"Hey Rookie----You were good" (Field Of Dreams)
|
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
OOPS! I forgot, if anyone feels like telling me to go fly a kite. I can do thaaaaat. I do however feel this is more informative than "Useless Thread To Increase your Rank". I get a kick(or punch)out of being a flyweight in with the heavyweights. "CHEERS"
"Hey Rookie----You were good" (Field Of Dreams)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 11:59 pm: |
|
"Does the report stating "a very small amount" not lend credence to a good possibility that the ink was of Victorian time. DUH ! What do I know ? "
Actually, Ken ,I think common sense would go a long way in Diary World. Welcome aboard.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
If you claim that the ink has already been adequately analysed...
I claim no such thing. You kept implying that no one had bothered to get it analysed at all, forcing me to set the record straight.
If a new - and repeatable - test is available that could resolve the chloroacetamide question once and for all, let's hear about it - I'm all ears, and more importantly, so is Robert Smith.
Your original assertion, over on a more appropriate thread, was that it was essentially accurate to state that the ink had been found full of modern preservatives over ten years ago, by AFI. In other words, that their work was adequate to put the lid on matters.
It has been my objection from the outset that science has so far failed to adequately conclude anything regarding the age of the document.
You seem to have our positions reversed here.
Do you know if there is a concentration of chloroacetamide in the dried diary ink that compares favourably to the 3.28% that preserves dry pre-1992 Diamine?
If not, hadn't you better try to find out, while I'm away on my hols? Otherwise you have no evidence to back up your original assertion.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I'm glad to see that you are at least now being a little more careful in your "summaries" of what I have said.
Yes, Philip Hutchinson's statement was essentially accurate, in that AFI did find that chloroacetamide was present in the ink.
As you yourself have pointed out, there is a possibility that by coincidence an unknown substance was present in the ink which exactly replicated the behaviour expected from chloroacetamide.
It is astonishing to hear you ask whether a test is available that could eliminate that theoretical possibility, because Roberts recommended such a test about a decade ago. (Or do you specify a "new" test because you are dissatisfied with what Roberts recommended for some reason? I assume "repeatible" is just a rhetorical flourish, because any properly conducted chemical analysis would be repeatable.)
And no, as I have explained several times, the AFI test could not determine the concentration of chloroacetamide in the ink. That is why your continued claims that the concentration is "too low" to match Diamine are so misleading.
The point is that the composition of the ink has not been determined, and is not known. As I have made clear several times, I am not just talking about a determination of chloroacetamide, but a full analysis of the composition of the ink. (And of course I never claimed anything as foolish as that no one had ever attempted any kind of analysis of the ink.)
If you really don't know what can be done by way of scientific analysis of ink on questioned documents, I can indeed supply you with some details - I can use Google as well as you can.
However, if you expect me to go to that trouble, as a mark of good faith I think it is reasonable to expect you to admit what is increasingly clear from your message - that the organisers of the "ongoing investigation" have not looked into these possibilities, and have not had such an analysis carried out.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
As you yourself have pointed out, there is a possibility that by coincidence an unknown substance was present in the ink which exactly replicated the behaviour expected from chloroacetamide.
Where have I pointed this out - exactly?
That is why your continued claims that the concentration is "too low" to match Diamine are so misleading.
Where are these 'continued' "too low" claims? I simply expect you to back up your own claim that what was found by AFI was a modern ingredient, preserving a modern ink. You haven't even started yet.
The point is that the composition of the ink has not been determined, and is not known.
So how can you claim that it has been proved to be of modern manufacture?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1560
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Chris,
You know, I know, and the clear thinking, rational, objective world knows...
And, as the last thirteen days have demonstrated, without one person we all know, there'd be the silence that this cheap modern hoax so richly deserves.
Enter the roundabout once again if you want, but be assured you'll just be driving in circles.
Sad to see the silliness starting so suddenly since the soft silence soothed this strange situation.
So so sorry,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
Honestly guys,
theres only so much to say on this subject isn't there?
Jenni |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Jenni and John
Absolutely.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
It seemed so. But apparently we're forgetting the first rule of the entertainment business.
The Show Must Go On!
I remember that from Moulin Rouge
So step right up folks, it looks like the circus is open for business again, and the freak show tent is filling up with the usual suspects.
I'm gonna' go see if I can find the cotton candy guy,
--John  |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
guys,
we're still here!
can't help it some times myself, i just do things i know are wrong!
ah well, these things right themselves in time,
Jenni
ps are you feeling ok John?! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
