|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3017
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:00 am: | 
|
Yo! Maria,
Last time I checked (and it wasn't so long ago) I didn't fall off the stupid tree. Please let’s not act as though I did, things will only get complicated if we do!
This is how a discussion works, just for your information, one person says something and then the other person answers it. In order to answer it the person has to have said it in the first place. Let’s just get that clear, fun as it is to be having this backwards conversation with you.
I never mentioned Peter. Just like the last time, I never mentioned Mel. In fact we weren't talking about genealogy at all - at least I don’t recall mentioning it. And you know what? - I think that if I had of done I would have remembered.
Let’s get this straight, because I've said it once only someone wasn’t listening. Do not try to patronise me. Just don't - because whatever other people might do I'm not going to take your attitude towards me. Its not on, I wasn’t being unreasonable to you. You don't know me and your assumptions based on my age alone (and the fact you clearly haven't read anything I've posted previously on these boards) show your wrong about me. And more than that, you are patronising towards all people below the age of twenty five, and as I say that does wind me up. You’re wrong about me just like you were wrong about the libel laws concerning dead people. And you will continue to be wrong until you start listening to the truth. Now I've tried to be reasonable with you and I will continue to try to do so, but your unprovoked attacks really have got to stop now.
Now we come to the part where you try to get me to say bad things about dead people. And it’s not going to happen. Everyone knows what I think about Feldy's genealogy. After all I am a third generation family historian myself and I have been doing genealogy since my teens, but we won't go there because it doesn't matter, because it wasn't what we were talking about. But clearly since you were wrong about both those things that we were talking about (testing and libel) you thought you'd find something else to patronise me about.
Now with the rant out the way let’s come on to your message.
Of course, Jenni Know it all, is not aware of this, and I'm afraid, when along comes someone who hasn't read Peter's observation on the flaws of that family tree, it is just infuriating, and I lost it. If she is so serious about her research, she should just read, what he wrote all of those years ago, as I'm not going to spend my precious time trying to point her or Caz were Feldman went wrong.
If we in our business did THAT kind of research, we would go hungry by now...
*Ahem* one step at a time on this I think.
# 1 we weren't talking about the flaws Peter discovered in the family tree and so your excuse for being a total bi**h at me is clearly invalid.
# 2 I don't need you to point anything out to me. Nor would I want you to given your serious attitude problem. I already figured what I need to know out for myself. Funnily enough I have the ability to think critically. That’s how I’m managing to notice all the flaws in your arguments. If there was something I wanted to know, I certainly wouldn’t ask you.
#3 Don’t call me a know it all, it’s rude. That said funnily enough I seem to know a lot more than you and you claim to be in possession of far superior knowledge, funny that.
But then, a new generation comes along, unaware of what has happened in the past and not even bothering to check what all the detractors from this fiasco have to say.
#4 I told you not to patronise me already. I might be younger than you, but since when did that give you the right to treat me like an idiot? You clearly have no idea about what research I have or haven't done and what I do or do not know about what detractors have to say. And stop referring to diary detractor’s as though I myself think it is genuine. If you can't get right even simple recorded facts like my position on the diary then what can you get right?
#5 Actually i for one don't spend my time making up rubbish about people I clearly know nothing about because they said something to defend Caroline (or whatever). Well frankly I much prefer Caroline to you any day. in fact I like her.
As for your point about what is moral and what is legal. We were talking about what is legal. you started it as before that we were talking about testing. And I clearly demonstrated to you that you were wrong about what is legal. I went to all that trouble and you had the audacity to call me ignorant. But don’t feel any need to apologise will you? don't feel the need to apologise for being patronising either, clearly you wouldn't mean it anyway.
And if you want to get into to what is moral - you can start with the morality of making unprovoked personal attacks on fellow posters.
Just for the record
Cheers
Jenni
Ps and please stop SHOUTING random words AT US its RUDE!!
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3018
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Hi Caroline,
isn't the weather lovely today?
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1811
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
And now, the ink...
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 29
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
My son came up with something that might explain why testing for Chloroacetamide in the ink would show positive results in older ink as well as newer ink. Ink factories used large tanks to manufacture the ink. Every so often, the tanks would be cleaned with a Chlorine based cleaner. (Chloroacetamide?)If this would cause some kind of contamination in the ink, it would explain why the one test showed a very low rate per million parts. A newer ink would show a much higher rate because it was actually used In The Ink Itself. This test now tells me the ink is older because it has a very low rate per million from contamination by the Chlorine based Cleaner. Chloroacetamide has been around since 1857. I still think the best thing to do is test how long the ink was on the paper.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1817
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
Hi Eddie,
Before you can draw any conclusions, you'd have to find out whether chloroacetamide was the same as chlorine.
I suspect it's not, but I'll let Lars give us the details.
Thanks,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 30
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:18 am: |
|
Hi John,
Good Idea. We are researching the Carter's Ink Company right now. The info we got came from them. We are searching everywhere to find out what Chloroacetamide was used for in the 19th century. I'd hate to see the money go for a test that would cause more confusion here.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Brilliant, Eddie - hope your searches will bear fruit. The more we can learn about the wretched stuff before the next test for it the better.
I hate to see anyone's money and time wasted unnecessarily too.
Love,
Caz
X |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Thanks Caz,
We're getting there slowly but surely. We did find an article about a Citrus Juice Factory that was being investigated for using Chloroacetamide to clean their Citrus Tanks. But it was in the 20th Century. Although, it does prove that it is used as a cleaning agent.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 27
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Maria wrote: "look at what happened in the TITANIC film when the producers of this film, slandered someone who was actually a HERO in the real life drama, Holywood portrayed him as a coward, there was great outrage in the town where he was born"
Just a digressional concern here; Maria castigates the producers of Titanic (1997) for their well-documented portrayal of 1st Officer William McMaster Murdoch, just as she castigates the young for expressing a passion for history.
But Maria, who purports to be something of a learned sage in contrast to us young-uns (!), remains unschooled on this particular issue.
James Cameron chose to depict the officer in question committing suicide as the ship was sinking. His descendants is Dalbeattie were understandable perturbed at this depiction, and complained accordingly, conspicuously ignoring the fact that an appreciable number of survivior accounts did claim to have witnessed an officer's suicide.
Although I am loathe to admonish Maria for erring in this regard, I hope she will exercise greater caution in the future, especially when alluding to the alleged shortcomings of younger generations.
(Message edited by BenH on October 28, 2005) |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
James Maybrick is a SUSPECT. Freedom of speech allows us to state who we think the Ripper was. Go to the SUSPECT thread and read some of the articles on the other 50 or more suspects. Should those family decendants sue any author for writing a book about who they think the Ripper was? Or sue any of us for talking about who we think the Ripper was?
Yours Truly,
Eddie
p.s. Let's get this back to the INK thread !! |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3038
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
Yo Eddie,
around here we never stick to the subject of the thread. And there's enough bloody threads for a start off.
Which is why i often wonder why we don't just admit defeat and have one solitary thread.
All in favour say aye!
Life would be so much simpler then.
As for the ink - yeah we really should get back onto that as its the topic of the thread i can only agree.
Yo Ben,
indeed, we all love the film Titanic esp.the ending (yes i know I'm mean, lol). Its almost worth sitting through the rest of the film for that.
Yo everyone,
in relation to ink and chloroacetamide I'm not sure how workable the whole chloroacetamide issue is. Any ideas
Cheers
Jenni
"Don't you know it's true what they say, Things happened for a reason,"
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 33
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Because Chloroacetamide was around since 1857, and there is a chance that it may have been used as one of the ingredients of 19th century chlorine based cleaners, I would rather see a test done to find out how long the ink was on the paper. If that cannot be done accurately, then a test for Chloroacetamide should be done allowing for a very small amount to be expected because of contamination from cleaning the ink tanks.
If this is a modern forgery, there has to be a way to prove the ink was recently put on the paper. There has to be some kind of damage done when liquid ink is put onto paper that is 100 years old. It has to show some kind of extra saturation. If they can't detect the ink is recent, and the paper is not damaged from the ink, then it tells me it was there for a long time.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
Not for nothing, but Titanic might very well be one of the worst movies ever made. I knew we were in trouble early on when Leo was playing cards against two Scandinavians and their names were "Olaf" and "Sven." Welcome, the movie said, to a full blown celebration of cliché. The writers worked overtime on this flick, didn't they -- stretched their imaginations right to the max. The hand on the steamed window during orgasm?! I mean, honestly. And the goofy villain who keeps arching his eyebrow in that dastardly way? It's like the whole script was written by a seven year old who had watched a years worth of movies in a week. I finally got in trouble in the theater for MSTing the stupid thing with my friends (MST3K fans know what I mean -- it was the only way to relieve the pain). When Kate was rushing to save Leo, as she held the axe across her chest and drug herself down the long hallway, I whispered in my best Danny voice "Redrum! Redrum!" That didn't go over too well in the rest of the theater. God, it was a bad movie. I was really hoping the lying old bag would just jump off the back of the boat at the end, if only in the name of justice.
But enough about that. Before we start posing problems, let's get this document thoroughly tested once and for all, shall we? You all know it's the right thing to do with a document that is used commercially to charge a man with multiple murders on two continents. Especially since everyone around here also knows that the silly thing is a fake. See, that's the difference between Maybrick as a suspect and the others around here -- he's being pimped as the Ripper in a book that's based on a document we all know he never wrote.
Test the ink. See what we can learn about when this thing was created. Learning is a good thing.
At least that's what I believe,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
"Yo everyone"
It just fills my heart with pride that we're all speaking like New Yorkers now. So some good did come out of the psycho rants...Again, Jenni - to say you comported yourself well under attack would be to put it mildly.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Yo Robert,
what do you mean, i always talk like this!!
And your to kind
Yo
Jenni
!
"Don't you know it's true what they say, Things happened for a reason,"
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2541
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
....and I just thoght it meant Yo as in Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!Or Yo ko O no-not you again! |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
"....and I just thoght it meant Yo as in Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!"
Proper New York usage would be "Yo, ho !"
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 34
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Yo, I got my New York Jets Shoit On Today. Day Gonna Moida Da Bums !! |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Hi ho JVO
Chloroactetamide: C2H4ClNO
Chlorine : Cl
Chlorine as sodium hypochlorite : NaOCl
Sodium hypochlorite being the most common cleaning agent featuring Cl.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Hello Eddie Derrico
And thats an interesting hypothesis. While I know nothing about ink manufacture, I got the impression that in Victorian times it was done on a fairly small scale. But an interesting hypothesis none the less.
Always worth remembering however that hand creams, moisturisers, diverse lotions and potions all contain the stuff and you just have to wonder how many hands have touched those pages over the years......
In fact one of the photos I saw of th ebook was it lying out in the open on the same bench as a load of reagents and chemicals. Not a fume hood or a latex glove in sight......
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
This is probably coming down the page or before my other posts but thats OK....
As far as I can see there are three things that can be tested as it stands now:
1. The iron content of the ink
2. The presence or abscence of nigrosine
3. The presence or abscence of chloroacetamide
BUt none of those say anything about when ink was put to paper. But rather have been touted as trying to distinguish between the most likely candidate for a forgers ink of choice (Diamine manuscript ink pre-1992) or a real Victorian ink (and lets face it, it just isnt very likely that Victorian ink was either found and used or manufactured for the forging itself). The above three tests have to be easy to perform. The first and last at least. The second probably (and probably at the same time and using the same method as the last one).
The normal methods of dating ink which are usually comparative dont seem to be feasible at this point.
The black powder has to be sorted out. I cannot see a forger bothering in getting bone black to add authenticity and if the powder is bone black the question has to asked what is it doing there as I thought it was already established that the diary book had been most likely used as a photo album or something in which case I cannot see why bone black would have ended up in it.
The "estra saturation" principle is surely the same as the ion migration test and that didnt agree with everyone at all. Not to say that there isnt something to be said for trying to (using whatever technology is available) get some genuine samples of Victorian writing and trying to see if the physical characteristics of how the diary ink has behaved in realtion to the paper bears any resemblance to how genuine inks have behaved in relation to the paper they are on. The point is accepted that the same ink/paper/storage conditions cannot be gotten but if a fair range of samples were obtained then a possible range for certain parameters could possible be established allowing something to be said. But as Caroline has said before, that type of work is expensive and lengthy which is why I mentioned the possibility of letting a post grad loose on it as a possible way forward. But I know the problems with that.
It would also be nice to know the laydown rate of the diary ink. The width of the pen nib must be possible to figure out and the amount of ink present (ball park figure) per unit area has to be established to allow for elimination of the sort of problems associated with trying to relate a concentration of a chemical to a mass of ink which is an issue here. And before anyone starts moaning, we only need a ballpark figure.
Mr P |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
"I cannot see a forger bothering in getting bone black to add authenticity"
Actually, I can. If you don't think Maybrick authored the Diary, then you have to think along these lines. Problem is, I think it's a more sophisticated touch than the Gang That Couldn't Hoax Straight seems capable of. It's like Crashaw residing in Whitechapel and having been poisoned; I don't see Mike Barrett and Friends having that deft a touch.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 35
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Hi Mr. Poster and Sir Robert
Yeah, the Bone Black has me puzzled too. Is there any way it can be tested for age? I'll have to get the kids on it to investigate.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1822
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
You see, this is the kind of nonsense that too often passes for logic around here...
Sir Robert writes:
"It's like Crashaw residing in Whitechapel and having been poisoned; I don't see Mike Barrett and Friends having that deft a touch."
But, of course...
That's not in the diary!
No forger would have to have known it, or had any sort of "touch" at all, because it's not in the book.
It's an after-the-fact bit of research projected backwards to the act of composition -- a completely invalid logical move.
Sometimes reading can be a tricky business, I do understand that. But it helps to remember the words that do appear in the book, you know.
Always amazed,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
You touched a nerve there.
Of course, the logical answer is that Mike Barrett, who couldn't forge a sick note, was allowed by Mr Big to select a single line of poetry for inclusion in the hoax.
And Barrett just happened to have a book containing a bit of Crashaw's poetry, and he just happened to select one of Crashaw's lines, and Crashaw just happened to have that link with Whitechapel, and that line just happened to be published in Liverpool in 1866, close to Maybrick's boyhood home, in a book of Crashaw's work.
There's not a lot to choose between all that and the library 'miracle' really, in terms of happy coincidences, is there?
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
blah, blah, blah,
library......
blah blah blah mircacle
blah blah blah
yo!
I guess what i'm saying is we have been here before
Jenni
"Don't you know it's true what they say, Things happened for a reason,"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1825
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
You're right, Caroline.
Reading in a completely illogical manner and granting knowledge to an author of something that's simply nowhere in the book is hitting a nerve for me.
I see way too much of it during my work day, and when I see this absurd nonsense here, I am as amused and disturbed by it as Lars is when he sees goofy chemistry.
The line has the words "intercourse" and "death." Someone stuck it in a fake diary about the Ripper.
Duh.
The rest is dreams and fantasies for a purpose I still don't understand.
Yes, Jenni, we have indeed.
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:53 pm: |
|
"... and Crashaw just happened to have that link with Whitechapel, and that line just happened to be published in Liverpool in 1866, close to Maybrick's boyhood home, in a book of Crashaw's work. "
And Crashaw just happened to have been alleged to have been poisoned....and a review of Michael Maybrick's performance just happened to appear in the Times next to a critique of Crashaw...
Sorry, I don't see Barrett as capable of that subtle a jest...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1833
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Of course, since that "jest" is nowhere in the diary, that doesn't really matter much, does it?
--John (heading out to a party)
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 36
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
I'm really gonna get hammered for this, but I don't care. James Maybrick loved reading about himself in the newspapers and played games with the different articles.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Perfect.
You certainly won't get hammered by me. I loved this post.
Many thanks, Eddie.
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 37
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Hi John,
Your Welcome. All I can say right now is that Technology and Forensics was just beginning when the Whitechapel Murders were taking place. Police knew very little about Serial Killers and the way they acted. For example, taunting Police with letters, leaving messages and clues and returning to the scene of the crimes. If the Diary is a fake, it was written by someone who knew the killer very well. We will just have to sit back and see what today's technology can come up with.
I believe James Maybrick killed these prostitutes, went back to his lodging, changed his clothes, and went right back at the scene of the crimes. I think he loved to put himself right under the noses of the Inspectors and play his funny games. I also think he left clues that will take some time to discover. Anther example would be the Zodiac Killer from California in the 1960's. He sent his letters to taunt the Police, and wrote his clues in cryptics codes. Sometimes writing backwards, diagonally and upside down. Police from the Victorian Times had no experience with this.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Hi Eddie,
You know, I think you're exactly right. After all, that's what the evidence in the diary shows us.
And we do know how often James talked about all his "funny little games," don't we?
Yes, I think that's probably just what he did after he killed these women.
Thanks again for the very interesting and well evidenced scenario,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 38
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Hi John,
Your Welcome, once again. I'm just wondering if this upcoming revelation is going to shoot my last post down ! 4 1/2 hours and counting !
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2546
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Having witnessed Jenny"s amazing outcome from her quest for the truth about one of the claims in the recent "Uncle Jack",I reckon [and hope] we will know one way or another about the claims regarding the authenticity of the diary-Jenny is second to none in these matters!Maybe this time with the help of Eddie"s findings we may get a little closer in finding out the age of the ink.
Out of interest I was looking just now at the 1908 ink of an inscription by my grandmother, in a book that belonged to her-it appears to have barely faded-it is in a dark, blue black ink.I can bring it to the next Whitechapel Society Meeting,if its of interest to Caz or the owner-it maybe a useful comparison,even though written 20 years later the ink is still nearly a hundred years old.
Natalie |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Hi, Natalie
That's a good idea. If they could compare the ingredients of a few older inks, and also the way the color changed, or didn't change, on the paper, that should be a big help.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 3:58 am: |
|
Howdy Eddie Derrico
I think bone black (Victorian bone black) probably lies outside the range of, for example, carbon dating techniques. Assuming it is bone black. It should also be remembered (and Im only saying this, it doesnt imply I believe anything one way or the other) that carbon was added to (wait for it) arsenic preparations so they would be visible if someone tried to use them for poisoning purposes. So, fair enough, theoretically, I could think of a VERY VERY VERY clever forger, possibly, adding bone black to add authenticity as Sir Robert mentions but while it may be possible I really dont think its probable at all.
The forger could not bother to imitate handwriting but went to the trouble of getting bone black. Which is one of the reasons I find the whole thing worth thinking about. BUt I am sure it will be pointed out to me that it isnt.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 2:40 am: |
|
"and a review of Michael Maybrick's performance just happened to appear in the Times next to a critique of Crashaw"
Is that true or just a piece of whimsy?
Mr P |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 7:38 pm: |
|
Hi Lars,
Actually, it's both.
The article in question, I believe, was actually an essay on Christmas poetry. In it, the author mentioned Crashaw among others. Interestingly, of all the poets mentioned, Crashaw was the one the article felt necessary to introduce to its readers as if he was the one they were likely not to have heard of before.
Of course, the fact that his name was included in an essay talking about religious poetry for the holidays in a newspaper that also mentioned the famous Mike Maybrick set some people's hearts aflutter and their imaginations running wild and they started talking as if that was somehow significant, even though none of them really believed Maybrick wrote the diary anyway.
It's a very strange world, this one.
--John
PS: I'm still with Eddie and the well established historical fact that Maybrick liked to play "silly little games." The diary clearly shows us this. This convinces me that Maybrick probably did write all those letter as well, and returned to the scene of his murders after cleaning up (and managed to get a copy of the police list about his own crimes and cite from it in his personal diary for some reason). So I'm not at all surprised that he cited a line of Crashaw's poetry which would later turn up also excerpted and cited in a modern prose source like it is in his diary. He was, after all a very clever guy. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 9:07 pm: |
|
"Is that true or just a piece of whimsy? "
Hey Mr. Poster - someone posted the scan from the Times awhile back. I'll see if I can find it. The Maybrick review and the essay mentioning Crashaw were printed adjacent to each other.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1843
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
Robert,
Actually, I believe they only scanned a small part of the essay, not the whole thing.
And if you can get the keyword search function to work, please let me know how. Every time I try, it kicks up no hits, even for words I know are there. I just tried "Christmas" and "poetry" and got nothing. But maybe I'm doing it wrong. Is there a select list of words it recognizes?
Technologically challenged,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Hi All,
Part of the article from The Times, Christmas Day edition, 1884, was posted by researcher supreme, Rob Clack.
Michael Maybrick's name is not mentioned, but that of his lyricist, Fred Weatherley, appears virtually next to Crashaw's.
There is little doubt in my mind that if any of the Maybricks took The Times, they would have dined out proudly on the sight of Fred alongside Shakespeare, Tennyson, Milton and Crashaw on Christmas Day.
Florence Aunspaugh's observation, that Michael 'thought he should be classed with Shakespeare, Byron, Milton and Tennyson' could well have been inspired by this very article.
And to think we once had to put up with repeated claims (backed up by a group of terminally shy PhDs) that no non-Catholic in Maybrick's day - and especially not James Maybrick himself - would have had access to, or knowledge of, or any possible interest in Crashaw's poetry.
That was just another load of bollocks.
Hi Nats,
Out of interest I was looking just now at the 1908 ink of an inscription by my grandmother, in a book that belonged to her-it appears to have barely faded-it is in a dark, blue black ink.I can bring it to the next Whitechapel Society Meeting,if its of interest to Caz or the owner-it maybe a useful comparison,even though written 20 years later the ink is still nearly a hundred years old.
Many thanks for this. I would be very interested to see your grandmother's inscription. I do know that Robert has many Victorian examples that are almost identical in colour to the diary ink, and Dr Eastaugh, Leeds University and, more recently, Dr Platt, have compared genuine documents of the right age with the diary and noted no inconsistencies.
John wrote:
The line has the words "intercourse" and "death." Someone stuck it in a fake diary about the Ripper.
Duh.
To see someone so completely sucked in by another of Mike Barrett's naive claims from a whole decade ago would be tragic if it weren't so comical.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 02, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
So it doesn't even mention Michael?
Aw, what a shame.
And where was that scan again? Anyone find it?
And where did we read about "Florence Aunspaugh's claim?" And when was it actually made? And what work of his did it refer to? And when was that written? And when was this newspaper article published? And when did James die? Perhaps I should post the link where all these questions were answered long ago and demonstrate once again why "Florence Aunspuagh's claim" is completely irrelevant to this situation and was made about something specific and utterly different. Or should we all have to open our Feldman again?
And since no one has provided any evidence that the real James would have read or quoted this poem by Crashaw, it seems my original claim remains unchallenged. That's nice anyway.
And of course, one needn't believe Mike about anything to opt for the simple common sense explanation about how this odd line of obscure poetry found its way into both the diary and a modern source, excerpted in the same manner. In fact, Mike is never even mentioned in the passage Caroline cites from my post, so I'm not sure what she's talking about.
But making sense has never been a priority around here clearly.
And, incidentally, after all these years, no one has been able to explain how it was only Mike who could tell us where else the line from his diary could be found, at least not in any believable manner.
Odd, that.
--John
PS: Don't worry Jenni, I won't be spending another week arguing about miracles. It's all here already.
PPS: I'm sure Caroline has forgotten this, or else she's just pretending not to know for the sake of her own little dramatic fantasy, but Florence Aunspaugh's claim, if read in full, refers specifically to Mike's composing 'The Holy City' in 1892 and she is quite clear what she's talking about. It has nothing to do with this 1884 newspaper article.
Sometimes simple accuracy gets in the way of the best desperation filled fantasy.
And that's the way arguments move along around here. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 3:19 am: |
|
The Maybrick review and the essay mentioning Crashaw were printed adjacent to each other.
I dont care what logic says.....thats interesting.
While maybrick probably did not write it, the forger, who ever it was, would be a great ripperologist indeed.
What date was the article in the paper?
Can the date when the Crashaw quote appeared in th ediary be inferred? Does it contradict the date of this article appearing?
Mr P |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1848
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Lars.
"While maybrick probably did not write it, the forger, who ever it was, would be a great ripperologist indeed."
That's pure and utter nonsense. I remind you again, there is nothing in the diary anywhere that in any way suggests its writer had to know or in any way knew any of this. This is a classic example of what my students do all the time. Reading backwards. Finding research after the fact and projecting it back into the mind of the author when there's no reason it had to be there. They think they're being clever. But it's a completely invalid and illogical move and tells us nothing at all about any forger.
The article appeared, by the way, in 1884, on Christmas eve -- four full years before the events allegedly chronicled in the diary. There's no reason to infer any authorial knowledge of it or any cause and effect or even any real relationship here between it and the five words on the diary page. The rules of reading really do apply.
If I wrote a diary claiming to be Diddles the Ripper and quoted the line "No, I am not Prince Hamlet nor was meant to be" in it because I thought it captured the psychology of a serial killer's lack of self-esteem and someone after the fact did research and discovered that the line's original author loved cats, they could not validly claim that I put the line in there because I knew its author loved cats and my suspect was a cat. I would in no way need to know that the author loved cats in order to put the line in there. In fact, it's just as likely I never knew that. It's a logically invalid reading move. Honestly.
And since neither you nor I nor Caroline nor Robert think James wrote the book, it's all sort of a stupid discussion anyway (except for the valuable lessons it teaches us about what are and are not valid reading and interpretive practices in literature and the power of desire and wish fulfillment over logic).
Writing this, appropriately enough, in my office,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 42
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 9:43 am: |
|
Mr. P and Sir Robert
We found some uses for Bone Black. Every article had something about it being used to help dissolve certain things, including arsenic. I was looking for something to see if it could be used to alter Ink, but didn't find anything. The closest I came was Bone Black being used in Artistic Paint. Nothing about Ink. But, I would think, if a forger had used Bone Black to alter the ink in some way, he would definitely clean up any powder residue in the Diary.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1849
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 9:53 am: |
|
Hey Lars,
One other thought.
Saying this bit of research tells us anything about the forgers is like saying if the diary ink has chloroacetamide in it, it should be green.
Know what I mean? 
--John |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2555
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Caz,
Will bring the book to the Dec 3rd meeting.Hope it may be useful!
Nats
xxx |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 44
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Hello People
You can't be sued for BELIEVING.
Maybe there are Suspects Decendants out there who want to sue because their relative was proven Not to be the Ripper.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi All,
The article appeared on Christmas Day, 1884, not Eve. And if Florence Aunspaugh was right about Michael Maybrick, it doesn't matter whether she first saw this side of him after his 1892 composition, Holy City, made him famous, or saw much earlier signs of this wannabe nature. It was there from his teens, the ambition to make something of himself.
So I can certainly see Michael cutting out and keeping such an article, and the famous names therein fuelling his ambitions.
The argument that James Maybrick's appetite could not possibly have been whetted by the article, or by browsing locally in Liverpool and coming across one of the editions published there in 1866, for example, leading him to take an interest in Crashaw's work (the Times article suggests a shy man would not care to read some of it aloud in the family drawing room) is a non-starter; it could - very easily - as easily as falling off a bike.
That doesn't mean it happened. It means that John's forger got lucky again, because he presumably didn't know that article existed; didn't know what versions of Crashaw's works, if any, were available at the right time; didn't know about Crashaw's Whitechapel link.
In fact, Mike is never even mentioned in the passage Caroline cites from my post, so I'm not sure what she's talking about.
I was just remarking that John's was not an original thought; Mike Barrett had it years ago.
Good role model there. It's a wonder John hasn't solved it yet.
Love,
Caz
X |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
