|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:24 pm: | 
|
Well noone would tune into the maybrick soap opera without a little intrigue...
Perhaps it were dirty Den that did Pen it.
I will remain shut and get some sleep as i have another maybrick pitch tomorrow afternoon..wish me speed and luck and try not to squabble...you all basically beleive the same thing...It needs testing...try and be nice to each other.
Good night Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1921
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I don't know whether we all believe that or not. But I certainly believe it. Seriously, I do wish you the best of luck.
And it would be nice to have everything out in the open for a change, rather than hearing endless hints about secret investigations that never share any new information.
My prayers are with you,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 132
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
Hi Ken
Thank You for backing me up. i feel like Im standing in the middle of a field with my arms out and the Unregistereds are shooting rocks at me. But it's fun !
i'm anxious to see what Jeff will be posting later. Take Care all. Back to the Rink.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
\From Robert Smith
I was pleased to see that John Omlor and Caroline Morris are in 100% agreement that the diary ink should be tested against the formula which Alec Voller used to make Diamine black manuscript ink up to 1992. I agree with them and will release the diary if such tests are scientifically feasible. I feel they should be conducted by an organisation of the highest repute in the field of ink chemistry.
My guess is that we are talking about costs of approximately Ł2,000/$4,000. John wrote on 28th October: “I’ve already said several times that there’s a signed cheque sitting on my desk when and if he ever lives up to his responsibility and does the work necessary to get these tests done”.
I believe I have no responsibility whatsoever to organise or finance tests. I have not even been involved financially or in any other way with the publishing of the diary since 1997. However, I am happy to encourage serious investigations into the diary’s origins.
As with the recent tests by Staffordshire University, I am sure we would all be happy to entrust the organisation and independent administration of the new tests to Jenni Pegg, who has kindly agreed to undertake that role. My only function will be in supplying the diary to a testing organisation.
Surely, not just John, but others, who want to see the diary proven to be a modern fake, will grasp this great opportunity, by emailing or posting to Jenni what sums they are prepared to pledge financially. Obviously no money needs to be paid over, until there is a proposal outlining the tests and the costs, which is acceptable to the donors.
My suggestion to Jenni, is that she starts with the proposal set out by Alec Voller to Nick Warren in a letter dated 12th July 1994, in which he explains how Nick (and Melvin) should go about testing the diary ink, to establish whether it is Diamine ink. Mr Voller wrote:
“If it is possible for you to arrange a chemical analysis of the ink deposit on paper, then you should look out for the following:
1. A chloroacetamide content of 4-5% of the dry ink deposit.
2. A nigrosine content of about 7% of the dry ink deposit.
3. An iron content of about 8% as metal on the dry ink deposit.”
These percentages are based on his formula for Diamine ink, as it was in 1992 or earlier (the formula was changed in 1992). If the diary ink contains very similar percentages of these ingredients, then it was written with Diamine, and the diary is a fake.
I don’t know why Melvin (working with Nick Warren) didn’t follow this proposal eleven years ago. Instead he asked AFI to test only whether the diary ink contained any chloroacetamide. AFI said it did, but no quantity or percentage was offered in its report of October 1994. Leeds University (commissioned by Shirley Harrison), reporting a month or so later concluded to the contrary, ie, that there is no chloroacetamide in the diary ink.
So, ladies and gentlemen, would you care to email or post to Jenni, what you would be prepared to contribute, in the event that the tests are practicable and affordable.
Incidentally, if you want Jenni to keep your name and/or the amount confidential, that’s fine. Just tell her. It’s only the total sum available, that needs to be disclosed by her.
Even if you feel that there are better tests, which could be done, please do, in any case, contact Jenni within the next two weeks, to tell her what sum you believe you can spare, so that she can at least estimate the budget available for these tests or for alternatives. The reality is, that new tests on the diary are unlikely to happen, unless there are funds known to be available to pay for them.
Robert Smith
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
oh just noticed my email address might be helpful huh? lol
jennipegg @ yahoo.co.uk
obviously no spaces but i dont want spamming
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
You've got my contribution, Jen - check your email.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Excellent. But if we're going to give the diary to "an organisation of the highest repute in the field of ink chemistry," then surely we should give them a chance to do more than just compare the ink to old-formula Diamine.
I mean, as long as it's going to be there, why not let them do whatever they think they can do in order to help determine the age of the ink?
That's what I have been suggesting for years. Surely that would be the sensible and responsible thing to do, if we're really interested in learning all we can about this book.
If we are finally going to submit the diary to thorough and complete laboratory testing, as I have been calling for all along, then yes indeed, my contribution is right here and ready to send.
Watching and waiting,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1923
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
One other thing,
Robert Smith tells us that
"I believe I have no responsibility whatsoever to organise or finance tests. I have not even been involved financially or in any other way with the publishing of the diary since 1997."
Well, if that's the case, then I assume he also believes he has no right to see the results of these tests before we all do, especially since others are arranging and paying for them. Right? And he has no proprietary rights to the results or the publication of the results. Right?
Just making sure about the details before sending funds,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for defending me.
My 'claim' that John insists I support is that 'the diary investigation took a new twist in 2003'.
The reality is that this is not so much an unprovoked claim as the final, frustrated straw of an answer to John's constant harrassment and misrepresentation - first demanding that I state my current position (despite being aware that I am involved in an ongoing investigation) and second, when he got nowhere on that one, dragging up statements I made before this particular aspect took off and trying to pass them off as my current position.
...she told us all about this new twist that was so significant that it made her rethink her earlier written statements about authenticity...
I said nothing about what sparked my involvement in this aspect, nor did I describe it as so significant that it made me 'rethink' earlier statements. I have already explained to John (but he prefers his own imagined version of my position) that I decided to forget earlier statements when my involvement was requested, choosing to begin a new slate.
It's obvious that something sparks any aspect of any investigation, so it's hardly one of the more controversial 'claims' made on these boards.
If she has permission to talk about it, then she should be open and honest and tell us just what she meant specifically.
As I have said repeatedly now, I have permission to remind those who need reminding that I became involved in another phase of the investigation (deciding to suspend judgement while it is ongoing). I do not have permission to discuss it beyond that or go into any details. Keith Skinner's intention is that no details will be revealed or discussed here before it has been verified and documented.
Otherwise, this is just a cheap game of hint and hide. It's cowardly, it's ridiculous, it's paranoid...
Yes that's it. I was just waiting here for John to prod me for the millionth time, so I could do the cowardly and ridiculous thing - hint and hide.
Where John gets 'paranoid' from I don't know.
Why simply telling the full and honest truth and explaining to everyone just what happened in 2003 is a problem remains a mystery.
I've explained to John what happened and there's no mystery: I became involved in another aspect of the investigation. That's not a claim - it's a fact. But I don't care whether John believes it or not. Anyone can check with Keith Skinner if they are that bovvered.
Me - I ain't bovvered.
But John is looking more and more bovvered with every post.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
Hi All,
Just a reminder in case these parts of Robert's message didn't get through:
Obviously no money needs to be paid over, until there is a proposal outlining the tests and the costs, which is acceptable to the donors...
Even if you feel that there are better tests, which could be done, please do, in any case, contact Jenni within the next two weeks, to tell her what sum you believe you can spare, so that she can at least estimate the budget available for these tests or for alternatives.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1924
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
This is getting much simpler now.
Caroline writes, regarding the secret squirrel investigation:
"I do not have permission to discuss it beyond that or go into any details."
So then, she did not have permission to inform us all that it took a "new twist" in 2003.
And that's why she could not (and still will not) tell us exactly what that alleged "new twist" was.
So, since she herself wrote that "it would be quite wrong of me to express views, put forward arguments or make claims, directly related to information I am not yet at liberty to reveal", I guess we can safely conclude that making the claim about the alleged "new twist" was simply "quite wrong" of her.
As I thought from the beginning.
--John
PS: Genuflecting and invoking Keith Skinner's name does not make hinting and then refusing to support one's claims an acceptable behavior. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1925
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
I assume Caroline's reprinting of a text we all just read was directed somehow at me.
If so, it was unnecessary. I have already been in contact with Jenni about the matter.
My subsequently posted questions about rights still stand.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Thats OK Caz, I had an email explaining the position, however what is currently important are the tests being proposed, they are much more exciting.
Something you can at last work together on.
I'd obviously like to have a camera there if possible and I'm willing to put in my own money if I can't get a direct pitch.(still waiting)
Just cant give an exact amount until I've confirmed a couple of things...I know someone who may be interested however, so please cut me in on any info, proposels and whats going on.
I can come up with some cash now but not the sort that you will need till I've sorted some other stuff.
I can at least find a camera and edit suite however.
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1926
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Jeff,
I think the idea of recording the entire process from start to finish for public presentation is an excellent one.
I hope you can make it happen,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
From Robert Smith
I am putting no restrictions on the number or the extent of the tests to be done. I did, in fact, specifically talk about the possibility of “better” and “alternative” tests in the last paragraph. Jenni will inform those who offer a contribution, what the testing organisation recommends can be achieved within the budget available.
My fifth paragraph says very explicitly: “Obviously no money needs to be paid over, until there is a proposal outlining the tests and the costs, which is acceptable to the donors.”
Did John actually read my post? As it says, John should tell Jenni what he is prepared to contribute. If he doesn’t like the testing organisation’s proposals, when they become available, he can withdraw that offer.
John’s second post also manages to miss the point. As Jenni is the organiser and administrator, it will be entirely her decision, when the time comes, as to who sees the results first and how they get published.
Again, just to emphasise it once again: John, at this stage doesn’t send any funds. He just tells Jenni within the next two weeks what he is prepared to pay, provied that the tests proposed by the testing organisation are acceptable to him and the rest of the donors.
The current objective is to establish the practical detail of what kind of budget Jenni would have at her disposal in order to gauge what scale of testing is feasible.
Isn’t that fair and reasonable? Let’s try to move on from negative words into positive actions.
Robert Smith
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1927
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Robert,
Your post is a little late, as I've already written to Jenni and we've discussed my ideas concerning full and thorough testing.
And my second post merely asked a couple of questions to make sure that, seeing as how other people are funding and organizing the tests, you do not reserve any right to see the results before the rest of us or to own the rights to the results or the rights to publish them.
You can't expect people to contribute and not to ask questions. That's all I was doing.
Not sure why your last post was necessary,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Hi john,
Robert was just clarifying things here on the boards
thats all
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1928
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Jenni,
No problem, although the tone wasn't exactly one of simple clarification. I'm not sure, for instance, how my asking a couple of questions "manages to miss the point."
But I don't care. I've sent you my thoughts and already informed you of my willingness to contribute. We'll see what happens.
Thanks,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
By the way, I urge everyone else on the boards to send Jenni a pledge of funds.
Let's get enough money together to do a proper, thorough set of new tests on all aspects of this diary and, if possible, get this thing settled once and for all so that we don't have to hear about it any further.
As donors, we can make sure that all of the results are immediately published in their complete and unedited form right here for everyone to see without cost and that the entire process is open and above board and that details are continually provided about what is happening as it happens and whatever is learned is shared with everyone right away rather than in hints and whispers or only years after the fact.
In fact, we might even be able to film the whole affair as well.
I hope everyone here cares enough about finally learning the truth to contribute something in order to make this possible.
If nothing else, we here at Diary World have amused and entertained you with our pointless bickering and World Wrestling Federation antics for many years now. All at no cost to you, the reader. We can't offer tote bags, or CDs the way Public Television does, but surely all that free entertainment must be worth something. Now is your chance to give back. Make it part of your holiday spending. Pledge what you can and if we can get this process organized to everyone's agreement, we can at long last, after more than a decade, get this thing finally properly tested.
Why not?
Hoping to hear good news from Jenni someday soon,
--John |
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Hi John, Now why would I want to contribute and put and end to the free amusement of pointless bickering and World Wrestling Federation antics. On the other hand i would donate towards a televised Steel Cage Match between Caz and yourself. That would be a humdinger. SERIOUSLY, I would consider a donation to resolve the issue{s}. I would think however that the administration of the endeavour would be better served by a structured body, possibly this casebook site. What monetary individual amounts are we looking at here ??  "GIZMO"
" Don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with people who are reckless wih yours." Baz Luhrman
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1930
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:48 pm: |
|
Hey there, Ken,
Of course, individual amounts would be up to the individual, I guess -- but as always, the more people we get contributing the smaller everyone's share would have to be.
Tell your friends,
--John |
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:46 pm: |
|
It hasn't been specifically spelled out, but what should happen, is that Robert Smith relinquishes the scrapbook to Ms. Pegg, who turns it over to the laboratory for an initial analysis. The laboratory analysts would then spend what time they deem necessary (at their expense???) scrutinizing the entire document to determine what necessary tests are required for the desired outcome (primarily when the ink went onto to the diary paper) and what sort of time frame analysis results could be available; and most of all what the associated costs would be.
The lab analysts may look at the document and decide that there are no conclusive tests that could be performed for the requested result(s.)
But if there is some chance that the lab determines that testing could produce a sought-after result, the laboratory should produce a proposal with associated costs. This proposal should then be posted on this site to see if enough interested posters can possibly fund the tests. I know they will be very expensive.
I have already told one poster that I am more than willing to fund a portion of the testing, but only after the laboratory looks at the entire document to see if anything can be done and more importantly if the tests will produce any meaningful results.
It would be prudent to have the lab look at the thing before donors start pledging funds for testing that may not be feasible.
- This from an Environmental Engineer who has spent considerable time running a GC/MS (Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer) for analysis of many compounds (this is the foreseeable analysis method as I see it) and it ain't cheap, despite what you may have read here before. |
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 1:34 am: |
|
Oh, one other thing,
How many sets of fingerprints have danced across the pages of the diary scrapbook over the few (??) years of its public existence? And what did those fingerprints contain? Cross-contamination from extraneous sources on the pages may cause peak interferences, even with scans that just try to focus on the ink. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 5:13 am: |
|
Hi All,
This is indeed good news.
Obviously, if it could be quickly and inexpensively determined, via a chemical analysis of the diary ink deposit on paper, that we have chloroacetamide, nigrosine and iron in the right percentages to correspond with pre-1992 Diamine, no further time or expense need be invested, and the question asked by John: 'why not let them do whatever they think they can do in order to help determine the age of the ink' would be redundant - we'd know it was Diamine and therefore modern.
So the good news is that John seems to be conceding that tests might well determine that the ink is not Diamine, and that more would need to be done.
The second bit of good news is that John talks about 'thorough and complete' testing being a real option, which suggests he is either going to donate enough himself to allow Jenni to budget for this, or he is confident that his own, plus everyone else's donations will cover it.
Jenni will see in two weeks how much money has been pledged and what can be afforded.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Another hint for John, because he's still trying desperately not to get it: for 'a new twist', read 'another phase'. Keith is fine with both. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 5:25 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
By the way, my contribution, small though it is, is unconditional, ie whatever test you can arrange, I'm in.
And if my six numbers come up tonight, I'll pledge some more. 
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1931
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Caroline seems to be rolling on about something, but I'm not sure what.
First of all, if someone can tell me where or when I've ever said this ink had to be Diamine and that's all we should test for, I'd like to see it. And of course it certainly does not have to be Diamine for the diary to be a cheap modern fake. And I've said from the very beginning that thorough testing on all aspects of the book should hav been conducted years ago.
Of course, if it is not Diamine, then Mike lied.
And I seem to recall saying the words "Mike lied" on this board about a billion times about all sorts of things, and also saying another billion times that I don't have to believe Mike about anything to know this book is indeed a cheap modern fake.
But you all knew that already.
And yes, I am indeed confident that my own, plus everyone else's donations will cover whatever thorough testing the lab thinks possible and useful. I have faith in this crowd. We can do this right, people, with your generous help. Pledge today!
And I think Scott's idea about how to proceed, and especially his idea about an "initial analysis" is an excellent plan.
I hope all of this is indeed "good news" for everyone.
--John
PS: It is becoming more and more apparent that in fact there was no "new twist" to the diary investigation in 2003. Is anyone surprised? I'm certainly not. This is exactly why we need to do this new investigation in a completely open and public manner, keeping everyone informed as things happen and sharing information immediately, so that we don't have this sort of ugly hinting and hiding and making stuff up about super secret events that never happened just to cover oneself when caught writing a bit of nonsense or trying to hide one's own beliefs. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
Hi everybody,
I'll keep you up to date - no worries.
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Thanks, Jenni.
Since we're just having fun while we wait, let me point out a truly wonderful moment in Diary World history that took place this morning.
In her last post, Caroline Morris actually has me (me, John Omlor) "conceding" that more tests on the diary might need to be done!
This may be the biggest (and funniest) moment of complete and deliberate amnesia in the history of this long and horrific affair.
Someone is actually suggesting that I need to concede the point that thorough and complete diary testing, beyond just testing for any one thing, should be undertaken.
I had thought that I had said just that already so many times that everyone already hated me purely because of my obsessive repetition of the point.
And yet now, in an act of rewriting history so brazen and utterly ridiculous it would a Maoist blush, Caroline actually has me needing to "concede" that more thorough and complete tests on the diary might need to be done.
If anyone had any doubts ever that the discussion here is driven not by the truth or by the record but solely by pointless rhetorical desire and blind self-interest, those doubts should now be put to rest.
I'm laughing about it now, because I can't even work up any offense or anger. It's just too silly.
Silly, but a perfect illustration.
Happy to wait (and to hit the links in an hour),
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
John,
yes i know who you are!!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Yes, I had assumed everyone did. Perhaps Caroline just forgot.
--John (back after a quick nine) |
Robert Habenicht
Police Constable
Username: Rlh
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 1:09 am: |
|
I've only recently come back to the board can you can correct me if I'm wrong here. Is it not possible to acquire and old inkwell or wells from the approximate time period? |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 318
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
I must Say Jenni that I am very disappionted by your decission. Surely there are more people in a wider context that have a right to know about the Maybrick Diary than just those of you who post on these boards.
I dont beleive a camera crew would be disruptive at all. Infact it could be done with just one person (myself) radio mics and one of the new Hi Def HDV cameras. They are very small. It would hardly be noticed.
This is a big story and surely one that should reach as wide an audience as possible.
Once these tests are done you will never again capture the moment.
I am offering my own time and effort. I am also prepared to scout around some more production companies this week to try and raise some more money. I've also offered to put in some of my personal money into testing.
What do you think I'm proposing to do with my camera...run around screaming and knocking over test tubes?
I am more than used to filming discreatly in such situations. I've also done thousands of talking head interveiws...it would be good to capture some of the veiws from people involved as the process carries on.
You will never recreate it...its a one off.
I think if people are putting up money they have a right to see exactly what went on and how it was done. If you have a better offer or anything to hide then say so, other wise I would ask you to reconsider this decission.
At least consider the possibilities and lagistics before dismissing this offer out of hand. I dont see why having a camera involved needs to be disruptive.
Yours Jeff |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:46 am: |
|
Hello Eddie
Its not the unregistereds you should be worrying about!
The registered are more than capable of being nasty.
And you might'nt even recognise its happening.
But I for one have no particular criticism at all. Not when the potentially case-solving debate about whether or not Mary Kelly was buxom and what happened to her pubic hair is raging on another thread that is supposedly outside the dark and dingy realm of Diary World.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Excellent news indeed.
How do I send money by email? Any chance of a postal address?
Or a bank number or something?
IM still in for the 50 euros or dollars I said I would give already.
But Im only willing to pay for the ink tests relating to iron, nigrosine and chloroacetamide.
Not any of the other "date the diary" ones (which I dont think exist yet).
And please ask the guys who are going to do the ink tests to state what they are going to do beforehand. Im not paying for tests to find out after the fact that theyve done some silly test that was flawed from the beginning.
Super. Positive news indeed. And a slap on the back for Caroline Anne Morris and probably one for jennifer Pegg as well.
BUt surely an organisation of the highest repute would be....dare I say it......Leeds?
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 3:59 am: |
|
Hey ho
I see that this proposal appears to be falling victim to the usual semantics and interpretations and so forth. I thought all this was started in relation to chloroacetamide?
I have said before I would contribute but the following conditions must be met by the proposed lab (and they are usual conditions, not related to definitions of what complete and conclusive mean:
1: The test for chloroacetamide should be gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
2: The extractant used must be demonstrabely (?)able to extract chloroacetamide from a dried solution and this should be documented.|
3: It must be shown that there has been no "carry over" of analyte or interferent from standard to sample or vice versa
4: It is appreciated that no quantitative answer can be obtained as to chloroacetamide content in the ink but a semi quantitative result or even a guesstimate would be nice.
5: I have nothing to say about nigrosine.
6: Iron should be determined by ICP_MS or something able to detect fairly low concentrations.
7: All analyses should be performed on paper samples containing ink, blank paper from the diary and if possible, paper samples containing the relevant Diamine ink or whatever. But I accept there appears to be some problem with that.
8: Full and complete documentation should be provided.
Contrary to Scotts assertion, GC_MS analyses are relatively cheap (even buying a GCMS is hardly considered very expensive these days) as I have shown and as is easily proved by just checking the price lists of companies offering the service. In fact, its so cheap, I'm surprised no lab has offered to do the thing for free.
But when eight or nine separate runs may be involved, it may not be cheap in the long run.
But I reckon we are going to get lost in a welter of "let them do new tests" and recrimination even though the original drive of this thread (on another thread) was to sort out chloroacetamide.
But Im still willing to contribute my 50.
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Howdy
Just one thing. Its painfully obvious that the percentages of the components in the liquid ink as applied to the paper cannot be determined as 1)the mass of dry ink on the sample cannot be ascertained and 2)the laydown of the ink is not known and 3)the mass of liquid ink corresponding to a mass of dried ink cannot be determined either.
Therefore I suggest that its more informative or at least less non-inoformative to look at the ratio of these components relative to each other (assuming chloroacetamide can be found).
Just dropping by
mr P. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 320
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
OUTRAGE.
I can not beleive after all your Maybrick threads words about tests needing to be done out in the open and with independant witness that noone is willing to speak out against Jennifer Peggs decission to do these tests in secret and behind closed doors.
I have followed these threads for some time and I thought at least the one thing that needed doing was fair open and new tests.
The word open seems to have been lost already.
Now Jennifer Pegg the person who so eliquantly spoke out against being Patronized has decided to tell me that letting a camera show the world that these tests were indeed done fairly...will simply be to disruptive...
Despite the fact that she has done nothing to discuss the details of what could or couldnt be done in terms of actually filming this process.
Are you all going to jion ranks and defend this outragious decission?
John you of all people have so often chritisized things done behind closed doors, are you going to support this decission?
I demand an explination..perhaps my money is just not good enough or you feel I am incappable of producing a balanced and fair television programme on the subject?
Perhaps this is a case of TWO LEGS GOOD THREE LEGS BETTER!
I say again if your going to do this...DO IT OUT IN THE OPEN WHERE EVERYONE CAN SEE.
Yours very pi**ed off ...Jeff |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 871
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Jennifer is absolutely right. Most of life is not a TV reality show or intended to be. A serious scientific investigation deserves be just that, not part of a media circus. If you don't have trust in Jenni or the lab ultimately chosen that the tests will be conducted fairly and competently then don't participate financially.
As for the crying need for you and a TV camera I can only ask cui bono?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Don
Who has ever suggested turning this into a reality TV Show? or Media Circus?
I have spent some time researching this story. I have every intension of producing and balanced and fair factual programme on the subject. If you require a fair and balanced veiw of my intentions and interst in this story I am sure that Paul Begg would be happy to give you a referance.
My interest in this story is not aboutr money. The Maybrick diary story is one that I have followed personally for some time.
I ask you to justify why a camera following this story will be disruptive and why you feel that I am incapable of presenting a fair and balanced account.
I ask you again do you want this done in the open or not?
We have seen your colours already Mr Souden are the rest of you going to hide behind cloaks and dagers?
I do not propose a media circus just good plain factual television about a story that everyone has a right to know about.
I am willing to be descreat and work with people to produce a DVD that everyone interested in this long sarger will want toi watch.
You have all talked about fair and open tests.
Are you willing to stand by those words or not?
Jeff |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
s**t i thought I had posted on this thread earlier to say i was oging to be at work and so wasnt able to post on the thread.
Sorry about that. don't know what went wrong there. i was in a rush i guess.
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Jeff,
either email me or this will have to wait til this essay is finished
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hiya people,
Jeff,
I am sorry I have offeneded you. Clearly this was not my intention.
I assure you - I certainly have nothing to hide.
If you are questioning my judgement or intergrity, well I guess that is your right to do that, but it is slightly annoying. I do have to say.
I am doing this in my own time because I want to and am able to not because I have some kind of ulterior motive. The truth is and alwys has been the most important thing to me.
Now at present I have no lab, so as i said to you in my email. I do not want to over complicate matters with a camera crew.
And when did i say disruptive that's not what i said is it? i said complicated.
I'm not saying it will be done behind closed doors. I'm saying this, if we're paying money we want the scientist (s) to be able to do there job properly.
I am willing to discuss it, but until I have a scientist - i can't really say anything more.
If you feel you want to talk more feel free to email me but i will be at work til quite late tommorow, so don't be offended if i cant reply straight away.
i don't really like my honesty being attacked.
thats all i will say for now before I go off on one big time
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
Jeff,
For what it's worth, I would think that before any decision could be made either way about filming, one would have to discuss it with the lab people and with the group of participating donors to get their thoughts on the question.
I, for one, would love to see a film or video record kept of the entire process from start to finish, in the same way that many such investigations have been recorded.
But I would also like to know what those doing the work had to say about the matter and what those spending the money had to say before I made any final decision about such a proposal.
Jenni says she's still willing to discuss it, so perhaps there will come a time when a thorough public discussion of the matter can properly take place.
Thanks for all your work and good intentions. I hope your idea proves to be possible.
You are right about one thing -- this entire process has to be completely open and information about what is happening has to be shared with all the participants as it happens and not well after the fact. There can be no secret agreements here and no non-disclosure nonsense or any other such stuff. This process has to take place in the full light of day from the beginning to the end. That's all that will save it from the poison that has already plagued all the other diary investigations of the past (including the super secret squirrel one that supposedly has been taking place for a good many years now).
I trust that when the time comes Jenni will be willing to listen to opinions from all concerned and to discuss the matter fully in public.
At this point, I think, that's all we can really ask.
Looking forward to more information soon enough.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Well Jenni I appreciate that your doing this in your own time and have no ulterior motive.
Because I beleive that was exactly what I was offering. And I dont beleive that I ever mentioned a crew either.
Just that I'd like to get a camera to cover some of the process and hopefully make a documentary about the problems that have occured while trying to authenticate said diary. And hopefully put some factual history to why the diary has got to this piont.
When I say tell the story I mean something that can be watched by a large audience not just an elite few.
And I very much take offence at it being suggested that I'm trying to turn the affair into a reality TV show or some media circus.
In fact like you I'm not completely sure exactly what I can or cant offer without knowing exactly when where and how things are going to take place.
What I find disturbing is your willingness to dismiss such an offer out of hand without discussing exactly what would be involved.
I have absolutely know Idea where you invented a TV crew from...all I have requested in princable is documenting some of the process...bearing in mind that once it has taken place this opertunity can never be replicated.
If indeed you are willing to discuss what could be possible then please do so. I have no more idea than you how that will work in practice. However I feel the principle that these tests are seen to be out in the open and that everyone can see what is taking place and why, is a good one.
I dont beleive saying that is in anyway questioning your integrity.
like you I do not like my integrity being questioned. My offer was sincere and I have no intention of 'complicating' anything.
I do how ever have an interest in telling this story, having already put some time and effort in and I cant think of another producer who knows the 'ins' and 'outs' of this somewhat complex affair as well as I do.
If who ever does these tests is not willing to put what he is doing on record then I do question whether they are the right person. Who ever they might be.
Jeff |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 133
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:42 pm: |
|
Hi Mr. P.
I'm catching up on the posts tonight. Yeah, I hope my name isn't taboo because of the stuff we put up last week. I didn't realize how touchy this Ripperology can be. Your post has me very interested in this testing, but I'm wondering what's going to happen if the tests show this thing is real.
Yours Truly,
Eddie
Hi Jeff
I'd like to see the testing videotaped, also. Did you check with some of the people behind this. Maybe they already have someone doing it and they just don't want more than one photographer.
Yours Truly,
Eddie
Hi Jenni and Caz,
If I'm not on the taboo list, I would like to make a small donation. I'm going to be a little short for the next few months because the kid got hurt pretty bad yesterday. A lot of Physical Therapy the next few months. But I think I could afford $25. I hope you don't thibk that's being a cheapskate.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
Hi All,
Just to emphasise again what Robert proposed: all offers to donate, as and when agreeable tests can be arranged, should be made to Jenni, in her role as administrator.
I simply stressed that a test for the diary ink's compatibility with Diamine seemed to be an obvious way forward. I am not involved in the testing process itself.
I do find it amusing to think how Mike Barrett has got us all running round like chickens with our heads cut off, because of another one of his claims, told to Harold Brough when he was desperately looking for ways of supporting his 'greatest forger on earth' claim.
Don't let him do this to us, please folks. Let's not fall out over the testing arrangements and give Jenni a hard time. It's a thankless task for her, ascertaining what can be done with the amount pledged by the end of the fortnight, if some are going to disagree with the proposals and start withdrawing their pledges.
Hi Jeff,
Let's wait and see what the lab says about filming. But I don't think you'll get everyone agreeing on this one. If it's a reputable lab, they should IMHO be worried about introducing any potential for extra contamination to the testing process - just one reason why they might refuse to be filmed doing the work.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1935
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Caroline speculates:
"If it's a reputable lab, they should IMHO be worried about introducing any potential for extra contamination to the testing process - just one reason why they might refuse to be filmed doing the work."
However, since she obviously doesn't know yet what the experts will say, she has no real way of knowing whether recording this process would indeed introduce any extra threat of contamination or not.
So it is probably best to completely ignore this sentence of hers and pay attention only to the one that comes immediately before it (and renders this latter one irrelevant).
"Let's wait and see what the lab says about filming."
Indeed.
And since this entire process will take place completely out in the open and above board, I'm sure that when the time comes Jenni will post the lab's response to the filming question in its entirety here for everyone to see (just as, no doubt, the results themselves will also appear here immediately as well).
Until then, such speculation concerning what the lab should or should not be "worried about" is really sort of pointless.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 324
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Look I think some of you have completely miss understood exactly what I'm proposing.
I am not a local wedding photographer and I am not some amitor that in anyway is proposing interfering with the interigrity of the testing process or putting anything in any way that could contaminate these tests.
That would be the vry last thing on my mind given the current problems that have surrounded the testing of this diary.
I spent 10 years as a sound producer after which I studied at Ravensbourne, I then worked of a number of production companyies including The BBC and Nickelodeon before spending four years as an Assistant Producer and camera/lighting director at Trans World internation. I then spent three years at IPM as a producer and spent a year in Development. Before working this year as a producer/director at Ruggie Media.
During my time at IPM I pitched a number of Jack the Ripper programme ideas. One of which involved a propossel for Investigating the Maybrick Diary Mystery. I spent some time on this propossel discussing what could be done with Paul Begg.
I am most certainly not a local wedding photographer whose going to get in the way and risk endangering these results what ever they eventual end up discovering.
When I say access, I will require what we call adiquate CUT AWAYS to tell this story. If this requires the odd mock up or reconstruction because the actuall test would be to sensitive to allow a camera to close I think we all can deal with this. I am quite used to getting what pictures I can, and i'm quite used to doing this a polite and sensitive way.
Other shots that would be useful is something covering the hand over of the Diary and shots of the Diary and what exactly is be proposed and tested.
More importantly I'd need a number of Talking head interveiws and this would probably mean arranging an interveiw with the person actually doing the tests before and after the process. Each interveiw is unlikely to take longer that about 30minutes and in the final edit would probably only fit a few minutes of the programme as talking heads are rather boring to watch. But it would be import to explain why that person has been choosen what there qualifications are and why we can trust there word and results.
It would also be great to get interveiws with other people involved in this sarger. However at present I have not even given thought to details like script. All i'm proposing is covering what I can with a camera. Discussing what is or is not possible and working around that. Thats largely how factual Documentary works. I do not need a camera there 24/7. I just need enough footage to cover a story about solving the Maybrick Diary Mystery.
As I currently have no backing I'm proposing doing this in my own time and off my own back.
I think I do know someone that would offer AVID time during the evenings so we could at least cut something to DVD. This could be distributed via casebook to those interested. Thats the best I can guarantee at present.
And obviously I'd be looking to sell this story to someone like Discovery, History or BBC4. But at the moment that is a million miles off. And exactly how when and where I am more than happy to discuss these eventual possibilities. I am certainly not in this story for money.
All I've asked is for the basic principle to access and film the diary, and I am more than happy to work within realistic restrinctions or what is considered practical.
I want valid and provable results that can finally end this mystrey as much as the rest of you.
I do not want to 'complicate' or risk these reults being contaminated anymore than you do.
I have spent some time researching and pitching this story and once the tests are started I really would like to get what I can in the 'can' before the oppertunity is lost...and I'm offering this in my own time and at my own expence.
I think the world have bought this story and they have the right to finally know the Truth.
What ever that be.
Jeff |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 134
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Hi John
When earlier tests were done, a photographer was there taking still pictures. I'm not sure about all the testing, but in "Ripper Diary" they have a few photos. I think the people doing the testing would want this done to show their procedure. A video would show more than the stills. And I don't see any problem if Jeff wants to videotape it. I think it would be a good idea to videotape the discissions after they get the results, also.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 135
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Hi Jenni
The Truth...Yes...The Truth...Someone finally got that word in there. Hopefully these tests will show that.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
