| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 4:35 pm: | 
|
Steve
I only meant that you must be a newcomer, if that was the first complete and utter rubbish you'd read here. There's been so much ...
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Ok...
Regarding the possible existence of other copies of the police inventory...
I agree that the authors seemingly direct lift of the list that became publicly available in the 80s ISN'T definitive proof of a modern forgery. It is indeed possible that the diaries author got ahold of either a duplicate of the list or had access to it before it became public.
However the balance of probability suggest that the author had access to it after it became public rather than having access to some unproved, alleged, duplicate copy.
I would like to suggest that this is an area where those who believe in a possible "old" forgery could do some research and support this as a valid possibility.
Until then, we know when the list was publicly available. I know where my money is in regards to when it was most likely that someone was able to access it, but that's a determination we all need to make until the research is done regarding the alleged copies...
Best regards,
John
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
John O,
Thanks! It's good to be back. :-)
I didn't really expect any tests, so I'm not too disappointed on that front. Given the storied history of the diary and "experts", I am not sure that any form of testing will be able to scientifically resolve the questions regarding the "how" and "when" of the diary. (History aside, I am not sure that science is up to the task.)
But it's all good. Have a good weekend John.
Best regards,
John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Hi John H.,
Well, it would be nice to know for sure what they can and cannot do.
Glad you've returned,
--John
PS: With the watch, too. |
Maria Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 44
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 4:10 am: |
|
Hi David O:
What you wrote brought a smile to my face.
"They are turning up stuff from Richard III, so medieval law and custom was still relevant even in the late 19th century"
In some instances medieval law is still relevant even today as we speak. Only last year, there was a review to abolish some of these laws in Chester, as they no longer apply. One of them was: That if any Welshman was found inside the city walls of Chester after midnight, by law he could be killed without punishment for the perpetrator. The reason was that there were a lot of cattle thieves that were stealing the animals after midnight, so the law was created to scare off the Welshmen that had gone to Chester with bad intentions. 
Therefore, the law had to be abolished as is no longer practical for our day and age. But it is very scary to know that it was still a law, which anyone could potentially invoke and escape a prison sentence, just because it hadn't been taken off the law books !
There are many other pre-medieval laws that are still enforced and valid today.
--Maria |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Hi Maria,
Yes, I believe it. England is an interesting old place. It wasn't until the 1820s that coroners stopped burying suicides beneath crossroads and driving stakes through their bodies (hopefully common practice had already rendered the staking part obsolete).
Cheers,
Dave |
Maria Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 45
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Hi David,
Well, the cross-roads burials were done with the idea that their souls could be saved. But quite frankly the stakes that you mention, could you be confusing this with vampires? I think this is different Dave.
Talking about ancient laws, the latest one I heard; that was recently enforced, was when Madonna bought an estate with huge grounds in the countryside to be her home. Inmediately after she acquired the property, the first thing she wanted to do, was to forbid anyone walking in her grounds. The National Association for Ramblers objected to that. --There are public pathways in her land, that had been used for generations-- so the case went to court.
She alleged "privacy" even though the public foot-paths were well away from her house. She lost the case to the ramblers. You can walk for miles; all the length and breath of Britain through this public foot-paths including when they are in private land. And that was it.
Kind regards,
-Maria
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Hi Maria,
Oh no, the staking of suicides is mentioned in both Jervis 1888 and Jervis 1829, 117-8. The practice seems reserved for people who were felo de se, self-murderers, a distinction being made between people who killed themselves in their right minds as opposed to those who were mentally disturbed:
It was formerly usual for the Coroners to grant a warrant, directing the constables and churchwardens of the parish where the inquest was held, to cause the body of a felo de se to be buried in some public street or highway, which was usually complied with by burying the party in a public cross-road, and by driving a stake through his body.
Jervis says Geo.4, c.52 discontinued the practice, which had been criticized for some time. I don't know if the were still staking people in the early 19th century (or if coroners quietly decided not to follow the practice), but I do know that Joseph Sellis, who was supposed to have killed himself in St. James Palace in 1810, was buried at a crossroads.
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Apparently John Williams, the Ratcliffe Highway murderer, was buried at a crossroads with a stake through his heart in 1811, after killing himself in prison.
Chris Phillips
|
Maria Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 46
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
PS. The vampires with the stake in the heart buried beneath the cross-roads, was done to prevent them from walking away. This was practiced in Romania and Central Europe, not England.
If they were Jewish, however, it didn't work !
--Maria
|
Maria Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 47
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Hi Dave:
Well, I suppose I'm wrong then.
-Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Hi Dave:
The way I understand it goes like this: If the person was sound of mind. It Meant he knew exactly what he was doing and therefore, couldn't be buried in the church grounds because it was considered a sin. So the church would recommend the cross-road burial to save his soul.
If it was someone insane or crazy and he committed suicide, then in that instance, he could be buried in the church grounds because he didn't know what he was doing.
The business about the stakes for felons is new to me, what was the point of having the stakes in the heart if the vampires were not involved ? How funny.
--Maria |
Spiro
Police Constable
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
Hello,
It would appear that the tin match box is indeed empty. Talking of stakes and crossroads there is another example of the evolving of the public spirit towards judicial sanity.
Helen Duncan was the last person to be convicted under the Witchcraft Act (1736) as late as 1944. The powers that be were anxious that by her alleged clairvoyant powers she could betray details of the D-Day preparations.
During World War II, Duncan held a seance in Portsmouth at which she indicated knowledge that the HMS Barham had been sunk. This knowledge had been kept from the public so the British Admiralty attempted to silence and denigrate her by invoking this arcane act that had also enjoyed currency in the Victorian period.
She was to spend nine long months in prison and it was not until 1951 that the last Witchcraft Act was repealed in England. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Thanks Chris for that bit about John Williams. What a job that must have been; I can imagine some of the conversations churchwardens and constables must have had:
"I'll hold the stake while you hammer."
"Who, me? I'm not hammering. You hammer. I'll hold the stake."
"Oh, all right. Hold it straight, will you? I'm catching ribs over here."
"Ow! That's my thumb!"
"Sorry, old man."
My question is: how'd they close the coffin? Maybe they used little stakes. I will bet you anything that someone regulated the size of stakes and how sharp they had to be. Ministry of Staking, you see. 
Hi Maria,
Yes, it is strange that they should stake felo de se's. I have assumed it was punishment for someone who was beyond punishment, a self-murderer being no different in the eyes of the law than a regular murderer. After they stopped using public roads as burial sites, coroners were able to direct that suicides be buried in churchyards or cemetaries between 9 pm and midnight, but without Christian burial rites. That was still the state of things in 1888, although I don't know if the 9-midnight rule was still in effect.
Spiro, that's fascinating about the Witchcraft Act.
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
Dave
I've always assumed it was (originally) to prevent them rising from the grave, just as with vampires - suicides presumably being unquiet spirits who would be more likely to "walk".
Chris Phillips
|
Maria Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 49
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
Hi Dave:
Not only in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of the church. Committing Murder is a Mortal Sin,
Committing suicide is also a Mortal sin. People who commit a Mortal Sin cannot be buried in consecrated ground like the church grounds. Therefore, they had to be buried somewhere else.
The cross-roads, has the sign of the cross over the dead person's body who committed the Mortal sin, this is what the church devised in order to save their souls, that is: The Cross. Therefore: The Cross-roads for those unworthy of being buried in consecrated holy grounds.
There were categories of Sin. Benign sins and Mortal sins. Anyone with a Mortal sin, was barred from being buried in consecrated grounds.
So a public cross-road would do for these poor souls. Certainly not the church where all the other respectable people in town would be buried.
Hi Spiro,
I did like the information of the witchcraft act being applied in Victorian times, to stop Helen Duncan revealing state secrets. I think at any given moment, anyone can invoke any of these forgotten laws lurking in there to do what they want.
But we don't need to go to ancient times. Right now they are trying to pass a Terrorist Act, and at the U.N. nobody could definitely enunciate what a terrorist really is, because, gulp.. our own goverments could be accused of Terrorism, so no conclusion was reached. Yet, nearly any citizen suspected of terrorism can be held in prison indefinitely and without a trial. And without explanation as to why he is being held.
Innocent until proven guilty, has been thrown out the window a long time ago. Is a secret policy that hasn't been passed through Parliament, so this means that it has not been approved by Ministers that represent the people.
Talking about it or discussing it is Heresy.
Of course witchcraft was considered to have something to do with the devil. The Church and the State worked together to create the laws. These laws simply reflected the religious beliefs of the people.
I did enjoy your piece too.
Kind regards,
-Maria |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5060
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
Why are suicides, of all people, supposed to return to their earthly haunts? They're the poor buggers who are so desperate to get away.
Whenever Patrick McGoohan got out of the Village, they brought him back...
Robert |
Maria Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 50
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Hi Dave:
You are absolutely right about the stakes in the heart in Britain. The reasoning behind it was that when the resurrection came around, they would not come back to life and they would remain dead for ever. So it was for someone who was beyond redemption. God ! So much for Christian forgiveness ! I'm glad I'm not a Christian ! I shall remain for ever a pagan.
I have to finish my packing as we are off to Spain tomorrow and Peter is delighted he is just going to watch me work, whilst he drinks his margaritas beside the swimming pool.
I did enjoyed your rendition of the stakes! Very funny.
Take care,
-Maria |
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
John O. & John H.
I know they found the Hitler Diaries to be forgeries because of the paper which had material in the paper not used until the 1950's. But what about the Mormon Documents that Mark Hofman forged? What kind of tests did they use on those documents? He made plenty of them. Or did he get careless and use a different technique on the later ones?
Yours Truly
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Steve
I've been reading Ripper Books for forty years. Haven't found a bad one yet. If you are going to be a crtic on the subject. Please read about 25 or 30 more books before you do.
Yours Truly
Eddie |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
Hello
I am not sure that science is up to the task
This is a fair point. But in fairness, it should possibly read "current science" but I do appreciate what is meant by the sentence.
As an alternative to getting the oft-mentioned "expensive and incredibly complex" tests done on this diary there may be an alternative (slim).
The labs that keep get mentioned to test this diary are usually approached on a commercial basis and therefore charge probably by the hour hence the expense.And are by the nature of their business limited to the application of current scientific methods.
A theoretical alternative could be to approach a university with respect to getting a PhD student to do a job on it. Universities can usually sort out funding through their "basic research" funding programmes or alternatively they may be able to gain some "applied funding" by getting the interest of a company such as HP or some other ink manufacturer.
This could be of interest to a university becuase the nature of the problem will surely get them some media interest (read: advertising for the department) which is rarely unwelcome.
Such an approach will allow for the diary to be tested in a forum where current science is not a limiting factor as a PhD should be pushing the boundaries at least a little.
It is appreciated that such a forum will not be acceptable to all as producing a definitive result (and that includes me to some extent)but it would have the undeniable benefit of, at the very least, producing a very useful (quality controlled through the peer review process) text outlining the possiblities, failings and avenues for further study regarding the diary. It may be able to develop such existing techniques to the point where a useful analysis could be conducted or in the best possible case, produce a result that actually says something.
But as JVO will undoubtedly say (and in this case he is right), the diary has to be released. But it could be argued that where it is at the moment is not producing any revenue for anyone and such a project could actually squeeze one more book out of it or even a Discovery Channel type documentary.
Mr P.
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:02 pm: |
|
Dear Julie.....
I dont believe I actually called anyone an idiot, apart from stating I was'nt one, and I certainly did not say contributors to these boards OR writers we're idiots.
I said I had contributed nothing to the coffers of fantasists(knight/sickert) & liars(The Diary) nothing more. Now - correct me if I'm wrong here but Joseph Gorman has admitted he made the whole thing up which makes him a fantasist & Michael Barrett confessed to forging the diary which makes him a liar - facts.
I own plenty of books on the subject thanks very much Julie - just not books that claim to know who the killer was.
Next time you want to put words in someone's mouth dont pick me.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
Lars,
Perhaps you could present such a proposal directly to the owners of the diary and the watch.
Good luck,
--John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Howdy JVO
Now why would I go and do that and invite such misery upon myself?
Im sure there are plenty of readers of this forum who are in a much better position than me to pursue such avenues.
But I agree in general: having the thing fester in a safe deposit box is not the best option. And it does leave the impression, intended or not, that there is an unwillingness to push the envelope a bit in order to determine as much as possible about it.
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1742
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
Lars,
Agreed.
All the best,
--John |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 99
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
All,
Found alink to Dr William Rubenstein's article about Maybrick. Invalid really, but here it is:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:bGwIUvV9Z4kJ:www.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdf_his102/Ripper.pdf+aaron+kosminski&hl=en
Mike the Mauler
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Mike
That's one of my favourites. A little gem.
It only goes to show how little professorial chairs in British universities mean these days.
And of course it was written after the diary had been thoroughly debunked.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on September 27, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1743
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Thanks Mike.
Hilarious stuff.
I was all set to correct it (about the misstated scientific "conclusion" it mentions, about the silliness concerning the "Sir Jim" nonsense [no one ever found the phrase anywhere], about Billy seeing the book in '43 [no real evidence that he did], and about all the other problems it doesn't even mention)...
And then I got to what he considered "arguably the most important" clue we have against Maybrick -- the Diego Laurenz letter! I read that, broke into tears of laughter and was relieved that this turned out to be just another sucker on the vine.
I needed that smile, though. It was much appreciated.
--John
PS: The way these things work amazes me. An allegedly responsible historian writes a sentence like "[The diary's] handwriting appears to resemble some but not all of Maybrick's writing..." And then leaves it at that. He doesn't mention which of Maybrick's writing he thinks the diary resembles (what document? where? No one has ever cited any such document -- not even Paul Feldman). He doesn't point out that no expert anywhere has ever said that any of the real Maybrick's writing looks anything remotely like the diary. He doesn't cite a source. Nothing. He just makes this conclusion up out of thin air, writes it as if it's true and hopes no one notices. The stuff people have to do to make Maybrick sound even slightly serious as a Ripper candidate is priceless. The guy was a male of appropriate age in 1888 who could go to London and was having woman problems. That's it. Hell, so was Freud. Maybe he was the Ripper.
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 101
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Chris and John,
Maybe we sould give the guy the benefit of the doubt. The Diego Laurenz clue is possible... well, if you can somehow take Diego to be Spanish for James. Of course what do we do with Spanish "Jaime"?
If it was signed Gianni Fiorenza, he might have something there. I really didn't laugh because I felt so sorry for him and any students he might be teaching in Wales.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 759
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
John, Chris, Mike:
What I enjoyed most of all was the author's verbal sleight of hand in writing Anyone familiar with the diary will know Maybrick's penchant for puns and word-games.
Consider that for specious reasoning: The diary was written by Maybrick because it is full of puns and word-games and we know Maybrick was fond of them because the diary is full of them. If I only had some ham I'd make a ham sandwich if I only had some bread.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 102
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Don,
Right, but notice he doesn't include Jack in any equation. It really was sad and embarrassing. One has to be convinced that Maybrick is the diarist and is the Ripper before one can consider that Maybrick likes puns. It reminds me of a course in rhetoric I once took. Maybe that's what he teaches.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Steve Swift,
Why not be more specific in your posts with regard to your feelings.
Why make such a deal of the fact that you only have read 2 books that you did not pay for.
Why point out that you have not purchased certain books because you are not an idiot.
Spit it out guy.If you have something pertinent to say, than say it.
You left yourself wide open for constructive critism.
regards
Julie
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Eddie,
If I recall correctly, what brought Hoffman down wasn't detection of the forgeries, but a bomb. He was having financial difficulties and sold a massive set of docs he had not yet forged. (Oops) Not being able to complete 'em in time he started making bombs to buy time. Two people were killed. One bomb went off in Hoffman's car and seriously wounded him. The police later discovered evidence in his house.
The documents were demonstrated to be forgeries by putting them under ultraviolet light. He used two different chemicals to oxidize the ink and to keep it from feathering on the old paper he used. These chemicals florecised under ultraviolet light
There had been some doubts about his documents prior to the explosion, but those were based on the lack of provenance rather than any scientific testing.
Best regards,
John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Hey Mr. Poster,
I like the idea of getting a university involved, but I think they might find it hard to find a sponsor to fund the research. You never know though. I would of course welcome any attempt.
I'm also a bit skeptical in regards to any experimental techniques. McNeill's ion migration test should send up warning signs about unproven tests.
But even with the best science I somehow doubt we can close it on that basis alone. Very few people will invest the time to understand the details of the testing, and there are plenty of tests to support whichever conclusion you want. Consciously or unconsciously, I suspect people pick suspects that "sing" to their soul. Like religion, they pick the one that feels "right". There is plenty of evidence to pick and chose from and further testing won't erase the blunders of the past.
I think that before scientific testing on the diary can move forward, the existing results have to be examined and rechecked. If an independent team can go over what's been done and validate the basis, technique, execution and conclusions of the previous tests it would go a long way toward clearing up the mess that currently exists. It probably wouldn't settle the diary's hash one way or another, but it would provide a good basis for those with a serious interest in the diary to understand the information we already have before we make it any more complicated.
Of course, even with the best science suggesting they are forgeries, artifacts like the Vinland map and the Shroud of Turin are still raging controversies that show no sign of dying out.
But I suppose we should always remain hopeful. Maybe the past can be dismissed, the diary can be released, the testing can be done and there will be an answer... for those who want it.
Best regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
I must admit I don't understand Mr Poster's strictures against science.
Surely he doesn't think science is incapable of determining whether or not the ink contains chloroacetamide? And surely he doesn't believe that anyone worth mentioning would continue to argue for an old hoax if chloroacetamide were shown to be present?
The question could be settled quite easily, if those concerned really wanted to settle it.
Chris Phillips
|
Eddie Derrico
Police Constable
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
John
Thanks for the info on Hofman. I remember when he almost blew himself up, but I didn't remember about the fluorecent paper. I guess that test was already done on the Diary with another "inconclusive". I'd like to see a University get involved with this too. Have a Good Night.
Yours Truly,
Eddie
P.S. Hey...COOL !! I'm A Member!! |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 106
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 12:08 am: |
|
Robert,
THE VILLAGE!!! Yes! Thanks for that trip down amnesia lane. Loved that show, cheesy effects and all.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5073
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 4:16 am: |
|
Hi Mike
Be seeing you.
Robert |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Chris,
Unfortunately the groundwork for excusing the presence of cloracetamaide has been laid for a very long time.
- It existed at the time.
- We don't know it wasn't used in ink at the time.
- It's in the wrong proportions. 
- Maybe his pen was made of chloracetamaide.
- The Chloracetamaide fairies put it there.
And so on. It's all bunk of course, but that's the way it goes... Given a high enough standard of "proof", everything is possible. And once you go through the mental gymnastics necessary to get past the handwriting and text errors it's hard to stop.
Mike,
Many thanks for the link! I had forgotten about Rubenstein's article. "Diego Laurenz"! Too funny.
It reminds me of the reasoning in the old Batman movie. ("And it happened at sea... 'C' for Catwoman!")
Best regards,
John |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 108
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
John,
Would you believe I actually liked that movie. I was young and Catwoman was hot.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2941
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Excuse me for butting back in here with the actual topic of the thread for a second. But my brain is saying tin, tin,
why is that important.
Tin matchbox empty?
How would you know it was tin,
why is it important
whats wrong with matchbox empty!!?
apart from the obvious - tin!!
Unnecessary use of an adjective!!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
Jenni
But my brain is saying tin, tin,
My brain is answering "Snowy, Snowy! Captain Haddock, Professor Calculus, the Thompson Twins ..."
(Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anyway, it's far more fun discussing vampires, witchcraft and cult TV than wasting time on the diary.)
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
Jennifer,
I agree that the use of "tin" would be rather weird if the author didn't simply crib it from the police inventory. As would "empty" for that matter.
It's hard to imagine that a serial killer in Jack's circumstance is going to spend time going through the victims possessions and taking note of the material they're made of and their lack of contents. (Much less dwell on that detail after the fact rather than the actual killing/mutiliation.)
Mike,
I have no problem believing that, I still love that film. I probably watch it at least once a year.
"They may be drinkers Robin, but they're still human beings."
Best regards,
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5078
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Just going back to the original police list, I can't help feeling that they got a woman in to help them with it. I doubt if policemen would have known what all those clothes were made of.
I'm puzzled as to why the police described the matchbox as empty, but didn't say anything about whether the cigarette case contained anything. It seems a bit odd.
Robert |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Chris,
Indeed we all love Tin Tin, no question about that let me tell you!
John H.
I am no way saying the whole sentence is not weird unless cribbed from the inventory list. But it suddenyl struck me that the use of the word tin was a wee bit strange.
Robert,
you know I always assumed the cigarette case was empty, i dont know why.
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
It would certainly explain what Macnaghten was going on about when he said the truth lay at the bottom of the Thames. He meant there was a signed confession by Druitt in that strongbox! Could it still be there, I wonder ...?
‘Sir Jim’ decided to throw his ‘shinning’ knife deep into the river Mersey. Could it still be there, I wonder…? 
Hi Steve,
…not to mention the small fact that the forger has actually admitted it.
Michael Barrett confessed to forging the diary which makes him a liar - facts.
It’s not ‘fact’ - not even a small one - that Mike was the forger. I take it you haven’t seen any of his writings?
But I agree that Mike’s confession makes him a liar - it’s packed full of lies.
Hi Julie,
…however since Michael Barrett admitted to forgery I immediately put it on the back burner.
See above - Mike’s ‘admissions’ count for nothing.
Hi Mr Poster,
But…the diary has to be released.
And it was, for university testing arranged by Jenni Pegg. And the diary owner, Robert Smith, has stated quite clearly his willingness to release it again and again until we get somewhere, as long as someone independent can come up with further testing ideas and is willing to organise them.
Hi again Chris P,
The [chloroacetamide] question could be settled quite easily, if those concerned really wanted to settle it.
Again, if someone can organise a new, reliable and repeatable test for this, I’m sure no one is going to stand in their way.
Of course, it always begs the question why Melvin Harris didn’t simply commission a straightforward chemical comparison between the diary ink dots and pre-1992 formula Diamine, way back in 1994. Even if the diary ink was a mixture of Diamine and some other substances, we would expect to find all the Diamine ingredients present and correct. And that would have been that. Or would it?
I believe Melvin claimed at one time that Alec Voller (chief chemist at Diamine, who stated categorically, from a visual examination a year later, that the diary ink was not Diamine) made up some ink specially to his pre-1992 formula (which he had subsequently improved) in the wake of the diary curfuffle.
Now the only excuses I can think of for Melvin not asking for a direct comparison and putting the coffin lid on the hated diary would be a) if it was prohibitively expensive (which may have ended up being the case with McCrone - we never did find out anything about actual costs, and John pulled out of the job of making such enquiries for personal reasons and didn't keep his promise to guarantee that adequate funds would be in place as and when the diary was released), or b) if the sample Voller made up was not suitable, or available for testing, and none of the original pre-1992 ink could be obtained, or c) if Melvin was well aware that Mike’s claim about the diary ink coming from a certain shop was likely to turn out to be one more lie, and he didn’t dare put his stated suspicions to the ultimate test.
Robert Smith does dare; he has even appealed on these boards for someone to obtain some pre-1992 Diamine and for someone to organise the comparison, so he can release the diary.
Where there’s a will (to prove the claim that Mike had inside knowledge of the diary’s creation) there should be a way.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 8:09 am: |
|
Lots of talk.
Still no results.
Has it been thirteen years, yet? Or is it still twelve?
Perhaps Lars put it best when he wrote: Now why would I go and do that and invite such misery upon myself?
Besides, in the end we know where the buck stops. With the owners. They could be making sure they got this done in a timely manner, if they wanted.
Still waiting to see what happens,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 8:09 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Well, as we've given up repetitious diary discussions (or at least, some of us have), forgive me if I don't climb back aboard the merry-go-round for a few more turns.
The simple fact remains that for those who do not accept the AFI finding that the ink contains chloroacetamide, the question could be settled quite easily. If anyone wanted to settle it.
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Robert,
That's a very interesting point. I've never really thought about it, but it is weird that it would be listed that way. Unless maybe some of the other inventory items were found in it? (I wish I had the list in front of me.)
Caz,
It would be interesting to test the diary's ink against a pre-1992 sample, but I doubt it would resolve much of anything. Even if the same bottle used to forge the diary were available today, the tested samples wouldn't match exactly. Chloracetamaide breaks down over time, so there's no real possibility of a match.
As Chris points out, it would be nice to simply verify AFI's results and determine if chloracetamaide is in the ink. But even if it was there in 1992, I'd be skeptical there's much to find at this point simply because of the time that has been allowed to elapse.
And Voller's visual examination, while interesting, isn't supported by any sort of independently verifiable evidence.
Best regards,
John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Howdy Chris P.
Surely he doesn't think science is incapable of determining whether or not the ink contains chloroacetamide? And surely he doesn't believe that anyone worth mentioning would continue to argue for an old hoax if chloroacetamide were shown to be present?
Good science is capapble of showing ifchloroacetamide is present, whether or not it is capable of convincing others is a different matter. The tests to date indicate to my professional mind that it is not present.
If chloroacetamide was present in quantities typical of its use in inks I would say *"hands up". If its only present in quantities that indicate its prevalence in the environmnet I would say "thats not enough". Chloroacetamide in quantities not representative of the amount to be expected in ink is not indicative of modern ink.
My statement about doubting whether or not science could produce a definitive result was not directed towards chloroacetamide for th esimple reason that we have seen that both camps (modern/old) are not willing to accept the results.
Melvin H. was wrong to say it was present based on the AFI result in the same way that Liverpool could not really definitively say it was absent. Plus, the old ink camp are at a serious disadvantage as they must prove abscence which is virtually impossible in chemistry as it can only say "less than" and the modern camp seems to accept the traces that could be found in the environment as proof positive which it just isnt.
Chloroacetamide would convince me of modernity but only in quantities indicative of its intended inclusion as a constituent/additive to ink. I have analysed the AFI result previously and do not want to have to go over all that again. But th esituation as it stands is:
One lab may have found trace amounts of a chemical that is also an environmnetal contaminant using a technique that cannot identify chloroacetamide definitively, with results that reflected the amount of money paid rather that the "star trek" world of analytical chemistry mentioned in a certain diary book.
Another lab did not find chloroacetamide at levels representative of anything other than environmnetal contamination.
On other avenues, the presence of modern chemical such as detergents, deodorants, whatever in the paper under the ink would also close it for me.
The presence of arsenic in the gutter of the diary or the pages would have me scratching my head. Maybe a PhD student could improve the ion migration test or modify it to give better results. Analaysis of the glue and the ink under the glue to see if it matched the other ink could be an avenue.
jeff Leahy thrashed most of this out on another thread.
But, infected by JVO's eternal cynicism, I doubt any more tests will be doen on the diary.
Mr P |
