| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 12:49 pm: | 
|
More fantasy again from Caroline, imagining Mikey Maybrick doing all sorts of things...
Of course, there's no evidence for any of it and Florence is very clear in her quote what specifically she was talking about after 1892.
As for James Maybrick's appetite, since neither Caroline nor I think James Maybrick wrote this silly diary, there's not much point arguing whether he put these five words in this silly diary. Two people who agree that he didn't write it arguing about whether he wrote it -- that would be too ridiculous a discussion even for here.
And yes, I do have a certain level of expertise in these matters, no matter how much others might like to ridicule it, and no James did not put this line (which of course does not appear in this newspaper article) in this book.
And, once again, given the actual words in the diary, there is no reason for any forger to have needed or known any of this; and all of this after-the-fact research tells us absolutely nothing about who wrote the book. That's just the sad and simple logic of reading, folks. Don't blame me because you'd like it to mean something when it doesn't.
But I do agree that our forger got very lucky, indeed he (or she) got incredibly lucky when they stumbled onto such an ideal readership so desperate to find possible excuses and to keep hope alive at all costs that they were willing to project all their own after-the-fact research back into the head of the author just so they don't have to face what the text indicates over and over and over again -- that this cheap fake was composed in modern times.
Incidentally, you could pretty well take any book of prose with a single line of canonical poetry in it, do enough research and find all sorts of "meaningful" things like this to project back into the book. As I say, my kids do it all the time. Logically speaking it means nothing.
There are, after all, only five words in the diary -- the same five words also conveniently excerpted in another piece of modern prose which was first shown to everyone by... yes, that's right... the very same guy who gave us the book with the first five word citation in it -- pretty amazing, huh?
Been here before and before and before and before,
--John (who doesn't need Mike to tell me that "intercourse" and "death" might well belong in a Ripper book)
(Message edited by omlor on November 02, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
"While maybrick probably did not write it, the forger, who ever it was, would be a great ripperologist indeed."
I don't know if I'd go that far, but the picture of the forger that is slowly being pieced together sure as hell doesn't resemble the likes of Barrett or Tony Devereux.
Which is where I first came in, saying I believed three things about the author of the Diary:
1)He wasn't Jack the Ripper.
2)He wasn't James Maybrick.
and drumroll...
3)He wasn't Mike Barrett.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Unfortunately, as I have just demonstrated with some elementary level logic, none of these after-the-fact discoveries about Crashaw can tell us anything at all about the forgers, since there's nothing in the book that indicates they would or could have known any of them. The five words that are in the book could easily have been put there by people who knew nothing about how Crashaw died, for God's sake. Especially those five words.
The Diddles example demonstrates this precisely.
So you cannot conclude anything about the forger's level of intelligence, good bad or indifferent, from stuff they need not have known to write the book.
None of this stuff is in the book.
Robert is merely projecting here and such projections back into the text are, by definition, without any logical validity whatsoever. Why this simple fact is so hard for him to understand remains a mystery (well, not really).
I know it's a teachable concept. I've watched young people learn it.
Some blindness, I suppose, is willful,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Not quite the same five words actually.
Sphere Guide:
O costly intercourse
Of deaths, [& worse,]
Diary:
Oh costly intercourse
of death
And we have some strikingly similar symbolism and imagery going on in the preceding diary passages, when you compare them with the preceding lines in Crashaw's poem - more stuff that Mike didn't get from his Sphere Guide.
If we take John's teachable concept to its limits, I suppose some long lost correspondence from Florie to a lover, complaining about Jim's penchant for Crashaw imagery would also be dismissed with a haughty 'The forgers didn't need to know that - it's not in the diary'.
It's a brick wall.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3083
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Yo caz,
lets not get carried
the line in the diary came form the sphere book. .
of course doesnt mean any miracles happened as I keep saying!!
Jenni
ps yo yo
"Don't you know it's true what they say,That life it ain't easy"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1855
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I'm not going to bother to explain the obvious logic of valid and invalid reading again to Caroline (let's just hope that at some point she's smart enough to figure out what my young students can grasp after a week or two).
No one participating in this discussion thinks James wrote this line into this book, or any other line for that matter, so the whole thing is just a silly show.
And that's Diary World, isn't it? If not for the pure entertainment value, it would be a total waste of time, like http://www.weinerdograces.com.
Meanwhile, nothing ever changes and none of this tells us anything about the forgers.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
the line in the diary came form the sphere book. .
I bet you will never prove that, so I can play that game.
It didn't.
And one day I think I will be able to prove that.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1856
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Well, at least the discourse here has de-evolved into its most basic and well-defined form.
Yes it did.
No it didn't.
Yes it did.
No it didn't.
It should be a fun day.
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
"And we have some strikingly similar symbolism and imagery going on in the preceding diary passages, when you compare them with the preceding lines in Crashaw's poem - more stuff that Mike didn't get from his Sphere Guide"
Yo - A question for you, Caz.
What is the hard evidence that Barrett actually owned a Sphere Guide back in the day ? Or for that matter, today ?
I know he claimed to have turned his copy over to his lawyers - conveniently protected by attorney/client privilege. But has he ever waved his copy in someone face ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask.
Would anyone here like to explain exactly what "symbolism" and "imagery" are and how they function in Crashaw's poetry and how they function in the diary?
I'd be fascinated.
Sometimes, when you don't really know what you are talking about, I guess it's fun to pretend you do.
Just having a chuckle while Caroline and Sir Robert feed each other lines,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 46
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
John, Caz, Sir Robert, Jenni,
Read the Diary page leading up to the famous quotation. Maybrick was in a kind of frenzy. He seemed frustrated about his poetry, crossing everything out and mentioning turning to his sensible brother. He had Poetry on his mind. Maybe this poem was familiar to him and that line popped into his head.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Eddie,
Yup, I'll bet that's exactly what happened.
Thanks,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3085
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
No Caz is right
it came from the sphere book
yo
Jenni
"Don't you know it's true what they say,That life it ain't easy"
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 102
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Eddie
What you said about the chloroacetimide in old ink is very interesting.
How Melvin explained it to me, was that even though chloroacetamide was used in old inks, it was rough, and the edges around it were all spidery in appearance, whereas the modern inks with chloroacetamide, around the 1920's was refined around the edges, --when put on the paper, it came out in round spheres.
If memory serves me right. The chloroacetamide type found on the diary, presented the round spheres on the edges.
--Maria |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 10:22 pm: |
|
"whereas the modern inks with chloroacetamide, around the 1920's was refined around the edges, --when put on the paper, it came out in round spheres.
If memory serves me right. The chloroacetamide type found on the diary, presented the round spheres on the edges. "
I understand that you are arguing for modernity, but I'm arguing simply for created-before-the-Barretts-got-their-mitts-on-it. The 1920s or later still leaves a lot of room for Paul Begg's "perhaps an older hoax" line of questioning.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 47
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Maria
Thanks for that info. How many different types of inks were available back then. I'm asking that because America had a few large ink companies too. Suppose that ink came from the USA.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Yo,
firstly i wish it were easier to spell chloroacetamide in fact i hope whoever wrote that that i just copied and pasted it from spelt it correctly else I'll be rumbled.
let's get this clear, chloroacetamide was in the ink ergo its post 1920?
what about 1921 plus or minus, no, no im kidding!
Jenni
"Bring it all back to you"
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 103
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Eddie:
I really don't know how many types of ink were available at that time.
But there is a difference, between the old and the modern chloroacetamide. The modern is refined and the old one is coarse.
-Maria |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
No Caz is right
it came from the sphere book
I know I'm right, but I said it didn't come from the Sphere book - not Mike's anyway.
He handed it over in December 1994 - months after he first needed it to support his 'forged it single-handedly' confession.
I know where it is now and what it was used for.
Hi Maria,
How Melvin explained it to me, was that even though chloroacetamide was used in old inks...
I'm absolutely gobsmacked! I don't recall Melvin ever making such an admission, and I thought the whole argument here among modern hoax theorists has been that no one had ever found any evidence that any form of chloroacetamide was used in ink manufacture prior to the 1970s.
Are you sure about this Maria? If so it's a significant piece of information.
Love,
Caz
X |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
"He handed it over in December 1994 "
I'm confused on few things, Caz. Who did he turn it over to ? His attorneys ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Caroline writes:
"I know where it is now and what it was used for."
Don't you love the deliberate and dramatic voice of mystery? Don't you love the whole "I know something you don't know" voice of the playground? Don't you love the constant coy hinting about the super-secret-squirrel investigation that year after year fails to produce any real new information? Don't you love the whole "I'm not telling, but pay attention to me because I know" sadness?
It's a wonderful place, this one, with some very wonderful people.
Glad to know I'm not the only one with behavior problems,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Yo Caz,
Mike's Sphere book, who mentioned Mikes. I just meant a copy of the Sphere book. soorry for confusion.
Yo Robert,
that's a good question.
yo
Yo John,
first off i think it was used for a doorstop.
Second, you are saying you have behavioural problems? Lol, now who's attention seeking?
Jenni
ps Yo Maria!
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Hey Jenni,
It's a long established fact in my case. 
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 5:29 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I bet when John was typing the words:
Don't you love the whole "I'm not telling, but pay attention to me because I know" sadness?
he realised that this applies far more to him than to anyone else here, hence the admission about his self-evident behavioural problems.
For years we've put up with his anonymous scientists who have told him all the things they could do if only they had access to the diary (but we get not a single detail); his PhDs who could have assured us that Maybrick could never have come across any Crashaw poetry by accident or design (only they wouldn't come out of the closet after John warned them about Robert Smith  ); and now John's lawyers who have all told him that the lies he told about Robert in public weren't libellous (I wonder how cheap their useless advice was - the dosh could have gone towards the tests Robert has promised to release the diary for, no strings attached).
We get no details, no evidence, not a sausage from John. And I keep buttoned up 99.9% of the time, because I know all claims should be supported, no matter who makes them.
Chris Phillips used to make claims willy-nilly too, and when asked to support them did a runner.
Well I'm fed up with it. It's as one-sided as a very one-sided thing.
Hi Sir Robert,
Mike met up with private investigator, Alan Gray, in the first week of December 1994 to hand over the book. He had told him a month previously, when first mentioning "O sweet [sic] intercourse...", that the Sphere book containing the quotation was lodged with his solicitor; it wasn't. Mike lied again.
Mike pretended to Gray that he had retrieved the book from his solicitor before handing it over to the investigator on the street outside the solicitor's office.
As far as I know, the book was in Gray's possession from December 1994, although he gave Melvin Harris access to it. On August 10, 2004, the book changed hands again.
In those ten years, it was never used (in the physical sense of, say, Exhibit A) to support Mike's forgery claims.
That comes as no surprise to me at all.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 05, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
All I know is that there was once a time when Caroline was very critical of someone who came here and said "I know something you don't know and I'm not telling you what it is or how I know it."
I was critical of him, too.
Now here's Caroline once again doing her best Melvin Harris "I've got a secret" impersonation -- and trying as hard as possible to be a mysterious tease, and she seems to be doing so without a touch of irony.
Life can sometimes be delightful.
--John
PS: As for the lawyers "useless" advice -- it apparently turned out to be correct, didn't it? And it took no money away from anything test related, of course, that money had already been pledged. But it's interesting how Caroline returns once again to three years ago on this thread now. Maybe she'll find someone who cares over here. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
Yo everyone,
i'm not bothered about three years ago.
Yo
Jenni
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
How Melvin explained it to me, was that even though chloroacetamide was used in old inks, it was rough, and the edges around it were all spidery in appearance, whereas the modern inks with chloroacetamide, around the 1920's was refined around the edges, --when put on the paper, it came out in round spheres.
If memory serves me right. The chloroacetamide type found on the diary, presented the round spheres on the edges.
I dont understand this.
Was chloroacetamide used in old inks? If it was as MH seems to suggest, then how does the type of chloroacetamide used in old ink producing a spidery edge differ from the chloroacetamide used in new inks producing a "round edge" on the ink.
Someone is going to have to explain to me:
1) the difference between the two chloroacetamides
2) how did MH think modern chemistry was going to separate the two fabled types of chloroacetamide
3) now we not only have one chloroacetamide but two. Which one are we supposed to test for ?
4) no chloroacetamide has been found on the diary to date. But now it is producing round edges on th eink.
5) as far as I knew, chloroacetamide is a preservative. The behaviour modification being described above is that of a surfactant type compound. What was the purpose of the compound in ink?
6) what is "rough" chloroacetamide
7)"the edges around it" edges around what? The ink or the chloroacetamide (which hasnt been found in the diary yet)
And there are half a dozen more questions I can add to those.
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Howdy JVO
The article appeared, by the way, in 1884, on Christmas eve -- four full years before the events allegedly chronicled in the diary.
Fair point.
But every time I read how sloppy the forger was I seem to then read something which indicates that he was either very lucky or had done some real homework.
Before this, I was pretty convinced that Crashaw and maybrick could not be linked whatsoever. And that Crashaw just wasnt that common. But now he was making the paper (apparently) around the same time that maybrick could be expected to be perusing the times (assuming that this is all true).
Now if I pick another obscure poet and the scour the papers, what are the chances that between 1880 and 1890, that poets name and any name linked to Maybrick will appear in the same issue of any paper?
Im not saying that the forger could not have seen that paper or whatever and said "Hell, I'll throw in this Crashaw guy but better go to the library and find a suitable quote".
At any rate, its hardly less interesting or worthy of comment than 90% of the stuff that goes on in th eCasebook in general really. Is it?
Sometimes I wonder (and this is not meant as an insult) what would happen if JVO was let loose on the other threads. Much of what is being discussed on other threads, some of which has also been used to sell books (and is used to sell books) must be equally vulnerable to logical analysis? Is all of Ripperology and the cottage industry surrounding it a complete con?
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
How Melvin explained it to me, was that even though chloroacetamide was used in old inks,
When did Melvin H. decide that his chloroacetamide tests as conducted had been pointless? How come this hasnt been mentioned before seeing as it places the whole thing in the box marked "completely useless and ridiculous".
How did Melvin H. expect a lab to determine "spidery" or whatever?
What exactly is going on with respect to Melvin H: and his COMPLETELY contradictory statements?
First he says that old ink had no chloroacetamide.
Now he seems to have said that old ink did have chloroacetmide but it was the spidery kind (Lord above).
And the analysed ink apparently contained "spidery" chloroacetamide.
Any explanations or theories are very welcome.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
How Melvin explained it to me, was that even though chloroacetamide was used in old inks,
When did Melvin H. decide that his chloroacetamide tests as conducted had been pointless? How come this hasnt been mentioned before seeing as it places the whole thing in the box marked "completely useless and ridiculous".
How did Melvin H. expect a lab to determine "spidery" or whatever?
What exactly is going on with respect to Melvin H: and his COMPLETELY contradictory statements?
First he says that old ink had no chloroacetamide.
Now he seems to have said that old ink did have chloroacetmide but it was the spidery kind (Lord above).
And the analysed ink apparently contained "spidery" chloroacetamide.
Any explanations or theories are very welcome.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 3:55 am: |
|
But there is a difference, between the old and the modern chloroacetamide. The modern is refined and the old one is coarse.
Whaaat? Its not sugar.
Can someone please tell me at what point Melvin H. decided there was chloroacetamide, be it "refined" or "coarse" in old ink as this surely is of some concern.
If he in the past touted the presence or abscence of it as indicative of an inks age old/new ink while at the same time knowing that it was present in old ink, surely thats a little...disingenuous (or something)?
Mr P |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1866
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Lars,
Crashaw's name is not "linked to Maybrick" in any old paper that anyone has ever found.
You should probably look at the actual page of the paper before believing the hype.
And, in any case, reading such research back into the mind of the forger is a completely illogical and invalid act.
Remember, only five words appear in the actual book, and those five words are cited in the same modern source the guy who first gave us the diary also first showed us all.
And the difference between the diary book and all the other suspect books is that this one uses an obviously fake document as the basis for its charges.
I don't read the other threads, by the way, but I'd bet, just as a guess, that there's plenty of bad logic and sloppy thinking taking place on at least some of them.
I could be wrong about that, though.
--John |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 106
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Lars:
Yes, it was the way the ink was milled. You would have to consult with an expert on inks which you are not. By the way, I have sent all of your comments to Diana Simpston at AFI. It would be very interesting to know what the husband and wife have to say about your comments on their work on the diary !
--Maria |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
excuse me to sound rude. but how do we know that melvin said that about the ink?
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 107
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Jenni:
"excuse me to sound rude. but how do we know that Melvin said that about the ink?
The same way when he told me that there were was enough ink in the diary for more tests. At that time "Sir" Robert said that Melvin was lying. But as you can see in Shirley's few pages of the diary, there is plenty of ink left.
So there is no point in exagerating anything if you are going to be proved wrong later on. Is it? By the way, you got the laws wrong, even on the stuff that you put on the boards it says:
" Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation. Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important.
To protect oneself is fairly easy. Don't make anything up. "
Where Caz said that there wasn't more ink is on Thursday Oct. 20 2005, Sunday Oct. 23 on the discrediting Ploy, and Sunday Oct. 23 on the Ink thread
I don't want to spend more time finding out where else she said that there was no more ink and for further tests, the letters of the diary text would have to be used.
--Maria |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 744
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Maria/Mr. Poster -- Hi. Howse it going? I think there is some confusion here. What Maria is rightly describing is Melvin's description of how chloracetamide was a complex hand-made process in Victorian times. It wasn't commercially viable for something as cheap and inexpensive as manuscript ink until a new way of developing it came about around World War II. This was confirmed by a German poster on these boards two or three years ago, whose father was a chemist and the information he posted was that chloroacetamide wasn't made in commercial quantities until about 1949.
I don't think Melvin meant or ever implied that chloroacetamide was actually used in Victorian inks; in fact, I think he said the opposite on several occasions, and Harrison nor anyone else has come up with a formula where it was used. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that Mr. Voller himself was the first to use it as a preservative in ink in his formula for Diamine Ink.
Diamine was also the only manuscript ink in the 1990s that was also using nigrosine....like the Diary. I find it a remarkable coincidence that the art shop pointed out by Mike Barrett "just happened" to sell an ink that is compatable with what is known to be in pre 1992 Diamine--both in nigrosine and in chloroacetamide. The whole point of why Robert Smith wanted a bottle a pre-1992 Diamine Ink came about because Diamine changed their formula because they found that it quickly faded. The post=1992 formula was meant to 'correct' the problem. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the preservative chloroacetamide wasn't working the way Voller thought it would.
But there is no need to find a bottle of unopened Diamine ink from before 1992. Voller knows the exact formula and even made-up and supplied samples of this ink to both Robert Smith and Nick Warren to "play around with." A comparison between the Diary's ink and the pre-1992 ink could have been made ten years ago. RPalmer
(Message edited by rjpalmer on November 05, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Yo guys,
First off I won't pretend to not be confused, as I certainly didn't think Harris had said anything like that (thanks RJ for the clarification). Now with this out the way,
Yo Maria,
Let’s be clear here,
#1 did Robert say that? I don't know we'll find out when he reads this I guess.
#2 I don’t get your point about litigation. I don't like your tone, oh btw I think you'll find you’re wrong. lol!
#3 exaggerating? Who’s exaggerating?
If you're having a go at least be clear as to what it is we're supposed to have done it make things so much easier.
Jenni
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 110
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Jenni:
Awg... Find your brain first and then we will talk.
Roger:
Thank you dear, that's exactly how it was... as you can imagine all this is something I remembered from about 3 years ago. So that is not so bad. What I said was: " If memory serves me right..." But immediately, I have all the piragnas trying to devour me !!!
-Maria |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Yo maria,
really is that the best you can do?
Why don't you want to engage with the points I've raised?
Jenni
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 52
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Hi Mr. Poster
How contaminated could this ink be after passing the Diary around for this long a time? I know Chloroacetamide is used for makeup and perfumes etc. Could it contaminate the Diary enough to show a positive result?
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
"The same way when he told me that there were was enough ink in the diary for more tests. At that time "Sir" Robert said that Melvin was lying. "
What ??????????????????????????
I believe Harris misrepresented the degree to which he 'examined' the Diary. I've never commented on the availability of more ink for testing; worst case, common sense would say a tester could use some of the text itself.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
No Robert,
didn't think you had - none of us apart from Maria did.
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
"Read the Diary page leading up to the famous quotation. Maybrick was in a kind of frenzy. He seemed frustrated about his poetry, crossing everything out and mentioning turning to his sensible brother. He had Poetry on his mind. Maybe this poem was familiar to him and that line popped into his head. "
Hi Eddie - I take it from this that you're a Maybrickian, scarce in these parts. We don't get many here in Diary World.
What is it about the Diary that makes you feel it's legit ?
The Diary conveniently ends with Sir Jim telling us he's going to confess all to his wife; if that was indeed true, don't you think Flo might have mentioned this at her trial, especially after being sentenced to hang ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 53
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert
Yes, I'm a Maybrickite ! I can't tell you right now why I believe in the Diary. If it is a hoax, it has to be written by someone who knew James Maybrick did the Whitechapel Murders. All I can tell you right now is that my daughter is very good at photography. She found some interesting things that can be tied to the Diary. Time Reveals All ! We will just have to be patient.
I can say this, though. I wouldn't waste any money on testing for a little while.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Well, I for one am very interested in this new photographic evidence.
By all means, we should wait to test this document until we see what Eddie's daughter has found.
Breathless with anticipation,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 54
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
I believe Florence Maybrick wrote to Brierly about Jame's confession. (The tale he told me). First, I think she thought he was out of his mind while lying in his deathbed. Second, I think she would have probably been Lynched if those people knew she was Jack the Ripper's wife. Third, I think she would have been the laughing stock of London if she would have mentioned it.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
John,
are you feeling ok.
does someone else know your password? lol
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
"Second, I think she would have probably been Lynched if those people knew she was Jack the Ripper's wife. Third, I think she would have been the laughing stock of London if she would have mentioned it."
But surely her situation was pretty dire, no ? What would there have been for her to lose ? She was already sentenced to hang.
I have to tell you that I have an easier time conjecturing that someone connected to Flo or Flo herself had a latter day hand in the forgery than thinking Sir Jim was the author.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 55
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
I understand that. Because I was thinking about Florence making the Diary too. But how did she know all the stuff that was written. Or maybe he did have a partner in crime.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
This is getting even better.
Yes, perhaps Florence wrote the diary with Mike Maybrick's help after Mike arranged for his brother's death because he knew his brother's dirty secret and he didn't want to lose his fame and music royalties. I love it. And then Mike let Flo stand trial and would have let her hang to get rid of the witness, except for the damn public opinion...
Yes, I can see this shaping up quite nicely.
Now if only we could find that bloody Poste House pub in the right place and time and written the right way (like it is there now) and nail down exactly how Mike and Flo got a copy of the police report on Eddowes' belongings to list the exact same three articles in a row and use the same phraseology and everything...
Still, it's a smashing theory and would make an excellent film. I say let's run with it.
Thrilled and excited about that new photo evidence.
--John |
