|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sadie Jones
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 3:05 pm: |       |
Hi Shannon and John.
Firstly, thank you for replying to my posting. I realise this is a very wide area for speculation concerning the diary, and I can only once again apologise in advance if what I am saying is nonsense.
The point I am trying to make is this. First, Shannon you say your Grandfather kept a diary in WWII and if you tore out the pages he had used, obtained a pencil from those times and wrote in it, you could maybe convince people it was written in 1945. I agree. However, where would you get a pencil from that time, and if you did, how could you be sure it was from 1945? What sort of tests would it have to undergo to make sure it was accurate?
Secondly, John, in my own life experience, no-ones life has every detail revealed. There are always things we do not know about others. From what I have read concerning this subject, I was under the impression that the presence of chloracetamide was disputable. I could have read this wrong or misinterpreted what I was reading and if so I apologise.
What I guess I am trying to say is this. I am an average person who lives an interesting life. I am of good intelligence I think. But if you were going to do something like this, you would at least want to make sure that you had everything as accurate as can be. You would leave no room for error. And I am speaking from the point of view of someone who has no understanding of what chemical tests the document would have to endure in order to stand up as genuine and fool all of us. Once again I state as in my previous post, I do not know whether the diary is genuine or fake. I am not an expert. I can only go on what I read, what I know and what I am told. I have chosen to keep an open mind. If it is fake however, I would love to know the reason why they chose James Maybrick, someone who was not considered to be a serious ripper suspect anyway, when there are so many others to choose from (my own opinion of course). I do not wish to offend anyone, and if I have I apologise. But I will say this. I have kept numerous diaries over the years, some very detailed that very between scribble and orderly text and others I have either written inaccurately or left out details I chose not to divulge. Who can say what is accurate. Once again sorry for rambling on, thanks for listening.
Best wishes,
Sadie. |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 6:56 pm: | |
Anthony,
Thanks as always for reading :-) As far as I am aware Maybrick as only one adult descentdent and an interview with him can be found on the casebook somewhere. (I ran across it recently, but cannot recall offhand where it was.) It doesn't sound to me like he would be a likely cantidate for forgery, but anything is possible I guess.
Regards,
John Hacker |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
Sadie,
I completely agree that there are things that we do not know about others. That's part of my concern with the diary. If genuine, it seems very likely it would have revealed SOMETHING new instead of sticking only with well documented facts.
As far as the Chloracetamaide goes, yes, it is under dispute of a fashion however the basic facts boil down to this.
Analaysis for Industry ran a series of tests using a sample of pure Chloracetamaide to obtain a benchmark against which they could test the ink. The ink was run through, a showed a positive result (a "peak") for Chloracetamaide. When additional Chloracetamaide was added to that solution, the height of the peak increased, further confirming it's presence. Blank samples were processed between each test to insure that there was no possibility of contamination. The full details of this test are available on this website. (They can be found here : http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhevid1.html, and here http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhevid2.html)
Unsatisfied with these results, Shirley Harrison had some samples tested at Leeds university which found Chloracetamaide. For some reason that has never been explained, they ran a retest and didn't find any. Again, for some reason that has never been explained Leeds university decided that the original test was the one in error.
However as the record stands now 3 out of 4 tests have found the presence of the chemical. Personally, I find it highly unlikely that 3 tests out of 4 were incorrect (Especially after going through the results and methodology of the AFI tests which are well documented.), but others are certainly entitled to their opinion.
As far as why Maybrick would be chosen, I have to go back to my earlier suggestion that the centenniels of both crimes were only a few years before the appearance of the diary and could easily have been linked in the forgers mind. Additionally, given the miscarriage of justice in Florrie's conviction for James's death it makes the tale so much more deliciously ironic. Don't you think?
Not only was she married to a monster, she was unjustly convicted of his death. Which he brought about himself through his abuse of arsenic. Not only was she convicted, she was infact sentenced to death for her "crime". It makes for a nice literary tragedy, especially considering the diaries last minute "apologetic" tone and declaration of love for his poor Bunny. To me it seems highly contrived.
This is only speculation of course, but it seems to fit with the whole tone of the diary.
Regards,
John Hacker
(Message edited by jhacker on January 17, 2004)
(Message edited by jhacker on January 17, 2004) |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 343
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
Sadie, being able to come up with a pencil from 1945 is not as difficult as you would think. What you do is find it in a place where there is no reason to question its authenticity. Attend an estate auction sometime and you will find many common items from long ago that are being sold as part of a larger parcel. You can find books, paper, pens, pencils, and a host of other items. Because the items hold no singular monetary value there is no reason to fake them.
The ones doing the selling determine which items in the auction hold value. What you do is find an auction where the sellers have an item you want but place no special significance on it. They have no idea what you want it for and if you show some but not a lot of noticeable interest in the item it can be had for next to nothing.
Shannon
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 117
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Sadie,
I don't want to get embroiled at this time with the whole forgery discussion, but I can easily answer one of your questions. I am curator of a couple of collections at our local historical society so I have nosed around a bit and in one room there are all sorts of things lying around in boxes unaccounted for. Among those items are several dozen pencils that predate 1945 and I know they do because they advertise a local business that closed during the Depression. I don't think finding pencils more than 60 years old would be difficult.
Don. |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 118
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 8:33 pm: | |
Aha, while I was typing my answer to the "pencil problem" Shannon supplied his own. Doubtless there are many others as well, but in any case finding a pencil is not a problem.
Don. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 344
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 8:52 pm: | |
Donald, exactly... Thanks.. There are countless treasure troves lost in forgotten places. Most of the things we see we admire for their age, marvel at the inventors, and imagine all the possibilities of how they were used in the day; while there are those out there who would exploit them for criminal intent...
Shannon |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 6:03 am: | |
hi
i just wanted to ask, John H. something, you saod there was only one maybrick decendant, would that be david maybrick?
what about decendants of maybricks with other names are there none of these?
i certainly do not think threy forged anything if there are as its not something i'd do to my gt gt grandfsather but i am just curious.
jennifer |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
Jennifer,
Yep, that would be David Maybrick. I don't know if there are surviving relatives with other last names.
An interview with him can be found here:
http://casebook.org/authors/interviews/int-dm.html
Here's the snippet:
Casebook: Are you the only surviving Maybrick relative?
Mr. Maybrick: Yes, as far as I am aware there are no other surviving Maybricks apart from my baby son who was born this June.
That doesn't seem to preclude Maybrick decendents with other names, so I guess it's a possibility.
Regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 647
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Hi Sadie,
Since you have read our book – and many thanks for your comments about it, by the way – you will know about the analyses that the diary and watch have already been subjected to by a wide variety of historical and scientific professionals, whose findings have suffered from admitted deficiencies in expertise and/or funding, not to mention subjectivity, whether conscious or otherwise.
Between them, the experts have given the rest of us the task of sifting through contradictory, inconclusive and ultimately unsatisfactory results, leaving us to decide for ourselves what reliance we place on any of them.
Anyone who believes they already know when the artefacts were created will take any confirmatory indications as gospel, and find ways of arguing against the contra-indications. The only way for the amateurs to remain totally objective and open-minded is to accept that we won’t know for sure unless the professionals can somehow get their act together and give us a date with one strong, clear voice.
Fresh interpretations of the words in the diary and opinions about its age are welcome, but are of limited value if they amount to yet another subjective analysis based on previous subjective analyses, and even more limited if they contain regurgitated misinformation. So just whose opinion can you or I trust to be truly objective and qualified? I wish I could tell you.
Hi Shannon,
Could you please email me with details of the simple tests you say will prove the diary a fake, how these tests differ from those already carried out and where they are currently available, together with how much they are likely to cost and how they might be funded? I will gladly pass your information on to the people who require it in order for the diary to be released.
Thanks very much.
Hi John (H),
Do you know for certain that chloroacetamide was never used in period ink? Or do you mean it is not known to have been used, which is not quite the same thing? This chemical preservative was in use as early as 1857, although I don’t know how long it took before someone tried it in ink.
The problem has always been that, considering its use is to stay put and preserve the appearance of the ink, far tinier traces were found in the diary ink samples tested than one might reasonably expect if the suspected modern pre-1992 manuscript ink Diamine had been used. (And Diamine’s own chief chemist was certain that the diary ink was not Diamine, or a diluted version of it, when he examined the writing visually a year after AFI’s results were known.) This has never been satisfactorily explained, and no other ink, of any vintage, has been identified and shown to produce the chemical in the minute amounts that were measured.
One question for me would be why was the Leeds equipment suddenly unable to pick up a trace the second time round, when it was clearly sensitive enough to detect and measure this particular chemical at the first attempt? If it was really an integral part of the diary ink, where the hell did it go while the second test was being carried out? And why didn’t Leeds do a third to see if it had come safely back again?
Unfortunately, your confident prediction – ‘it’s a fair bet’ - that further testing could ‘nail down fairly conclusively’ when the diary was written, is one that not everyone believes can be made at all. It has been claimed elsewhere that it requires a leap in the dark, a ‘suck-it-and-see’ decision, with no clues as to whether anything useful will be learned, or whether it will prove an ill-advised waste of other people’s resources.
As with Shannon, if you have any scientific knowledge or information that can refute this claim and allow others to share your confidence, please do email me, so I can deliver as much sound advice as possible to the people who have been waiting to hear it.
Thanks very much.
Love,
Caz
|
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
John,
Thanks Again for the information. I'm going to do some more researching on this. This is a Great website!! Great People Too !!
Regards,
Anthony |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
Jennifer
If you read Paul feldman's book, he claims to have unearthed a whole tribe of Maybricks in Whittlesey I believe. Some of these seemed to have some family knowledge of the Maybrick poisoning.
Regards
Paul
Paul |
brian young
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
hi, i am interested in jtr is there anyone willing to talk to a ripper nut from england. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 2:28 pm: | |
john
thank you for pointing me to the art. i had understood paul feldman the same as you it seems!
Paul
believe me i've read paul feldmans book several times. are there living decendants kicking around still of the whittlesey 'maybricks'?
brian
theres plenty of peopkle willing to talk on these boards and we're all full of opinions!
does anyone know if it is possible to get into vcontact with either david maybrick or paul feldman or to pass on my interest to get ointo contact with paul feldman about his book?
does any one know if they'll be an updated version.
jennifer |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Hiya Caz,
A brief reply this time. I will give you a more detailed reply in a day or two via email. There's been a sudden death in my wife's family, and everything it a bit odd at the moment.
"Do you know for certain that chloroacetamide was never used in period ink? Or do you mean it is not known to have been used, which is not quite the same thing? This chemical preservative was in use as early as 1857, although I don’t know how long it took before someone tried it in ink."
It is not known to have been used in period ink. Is it POSSIBLE that it might have been? Sure. But it was expensive to manufacture at the time, and there were cheaper alternatives available so there is no reason to think that it was. I believe Voller suggested that it was first used in ink in the 1950s, but I can't put my finger on where I read that at the moment.
"The problem has always been that, considering its use is to stay put and preserve the appearance of the ink, far tinier traces were found in the diary ink samples tested than one might reasonably expect if the suspected modern pre-1992 manuscript ink Diamine had been used."
I have the results of the test that you are referring to, as well as the original AFI test, and what is being measured is the amount of chloracetamaide that was extracted via acetone, in the acetone solution. (Not the raw amount cloracetamaide in the ink.) Which would not account for the total content of chloracetamaide in the ink by quite a long shot. Chloracetamaide also breaks down under certain circumstances. For example, heat will do it nicely, so that's not necessarily that meaningful. If fact if we were to take the number that is being pushed for the total content of the ink were to be correct, we could rule out it's use as a preservative in the 1880s, because 6.5 ppm wouldn't preserve anything.
Additionally the paper sent for the second control (The blank diary paper) actually produced more peaks in the test than the original ink + paper combination which is fairly odd. I would be interested to know from which portions of the diary the various samples were taken.
"(And Diamine’s own chief chemist was certain that the diary ink was not Diamine, or a diluted version of it, when he examined the writing visually a year after AFI’s results were known.)"
A visual test isn't particularly conclusive. Indeed it was Voller himself that suggested that a presumptive test for chloracetamaide would demonstrate that the ink WAS in fact Diamine. But I am not arguing for Diamine here at this time. However, there are specific conditions of the diary that could account for Voller's visual observations and still allow it to be Diamine. I'll address that to you later in private.
"One question for me would be why was the Leeds equipment suddenly unable to pick up a trace the second time round, when it was clearly sensitive enough to detect and measure this particular chemical at the first attempt?"
If the second Leeds tests were to be accurate, I would ask where it came from in the other 3 tests? (1 at Leeds, 2 from AFI)
"If it was really an integral part of the diary ink, where the hell did it go while the second test was being carried out? And why didn’t Leeds do a third to see if it had come safely back again?"
I think a better question is why did they run a second, unasked for test? Clearly they had some concerns about the quality of their equipment and/or methodology. Without clarification from Leeds as to what the heck went wrong, there is no clear way to determine what's up. We do know without a doubt though, that they botched one of the two tests because they are mutually exclusive results. These tests have never been adequately documented and should be treated with UTMOST caution in my opinion.
Indeed, I find it interesting that when Shirley wanted another look at the possibility that chloracetamaide was present in the paper (as opposed to the ink) two years AFTER the Leeds tests, she went back to AFI.
I will try and put together a more comprehensive reply in email over the next few days as time allows. The ink is a pretty complicated subject. As you can see by the size of my "brief" reply :-)
Jennifer,
It's my understanding that Paul no longer has interest in the diary, believing that he has definately solved the case with his first book. I believe I read that here on the Casebook from someone who had met with him, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. You might want to try writing to him via his publisher though.
Regards,
John |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Shannon,
Feel free to drop me a private e-mail if you'd like further information on the question of the diary being retested. You can use the e-mail address in my profile.
Also, for those interested in a fairly comprehensive critique of the slippery and often outright fallacious logic used in Paul Feldman's book, see the Casebook archives on CD, where Chris George and I and a number of others spent some time paying very close attention to Feldman's rhetoric and method of "argument."
All the best and still enjoying the list in my few spare moments,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
hi john and john
thank you for the info
john o, you couldn't be more specific re the cd could you. i have to say it is feldmans use of geneology that is confusing me as this is another interest of mine.
john h.
i will try a polite letter via the publisher thank you.
sorry to hear your sad news.
regards
jennifer |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 2:03 pm: | |
Hi, John Omlor!
Nice to know you are still around and still have a chance to read the boards.
All the best
Chris |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi John (H),
What do you mean – the diary paper produced ‘more peaks’ in the test than ink + paper combined? Dr. Diana Simpson, of AFI, who extracted and tested samples of the blank paper for Shirley Harrison, reported to the authors of Inside Story that they contained no chloroacetamide, concluding, rather oddly I thought, that this was ‘because they were blank and, hence, contained no ink’.
The whole point of this test was to find out if the chloroacetamide could have been in the blank paper and not the ink, in case paper was one of the early ‘preparations’ found to contain the chemical. Dr. Simpson tested the blank paper for chloroacetamide and found none – because there was none to find (at least not in any measurable amount), not because the paper was blank. That was already established and was the point of doing the test.
Regarding the original tests of ink + paper dots, Dr. Simpson reported to us that ‘The results obtained were based on analysis of one or two ink “full stops” and represented 6.5 parts per million of chloroacetamide in the ink’. We had specifically asked her what this figure meant, and whether it could help identify the ink as Diamine, yet that was all she gave us; no mention of acetone solutions, nothing to suggest even the possibility that the figure would not compare with the actual proportion in a given liquid product.
It’s not a case of figures being ‘pushed’, John, it’s all we have from the horse’s mouth, with no further explanation, no caution advised.
The point about Voller is that he saw the diary and concluded Diamine wasn’t used when he already knew AFI had found chloroacetamide in the ink. He must have been pretty sure of himself not even to allow for a Diamine mix. He knew perfectly well that a forger could have done all sorts of tricks to try to pass a visual examination.
Leeds concluded from the second test that the ink taken straight from the diary contained no chloroacetamide – using equipment they knew could detect and measure this chemical in the tiniest amounts because it had already done so. They were satisfied without a ‘best of three’. I’d ask how they could be so satisfied.
I don’t know, but I would think Shirley couldn’t win. If she asks Leeds to test the paper, she is accused of choosing the people who gave her the result she wanted last time, and the paper results are condemned too, if favourable to her theory. If she asks AFI, so she is seen to be objective, and accepts the unfavourable result without seeking a second opinion, her faith in Leeds’ abilities is doubted.
Love,
Caz
PS Of course, we can dismiss every single one of Feldy’s arguments and it won’t take us a step towards actually working out who wrote the diary and when, and how Mike ended up with it.
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Jennifer,
Many thanks, it's appreciated.
Caz,
Very quickly this time. Many of your points I'm addressing in an email I'll be sending off tonight or tommorow. Though I am sure it will raise more questions for you.
The one thing I did want to address was this:
"What do you mean – the diary paper produced ‘more peaks’ in the test than ink + paper combined? Dr. Diana Simpson, of AFI, who extracted and tested samples of the blank paper for Shirley Harrison, reported to the authors of Inside Story that they contained no chloroacetamide, concluding, rather oddly I thought, that this was ‘because they were blank and, hence, contained no ink’."
What I mean is exactly what was said. :-) The test used was Thin Layer Chromatography. A solvent (acetone in this case) is used to extract substances from the sample being tested and it's fed into the machine. The machine will draw peaks on a piece of paper representing different chemical compounds. Based on where these peaks occur and how high they are it is possible to determine what these chemicals are, and how much is present in the solution being tested.
And oddly enough the blank paper samples provided, produced more peaks than the initial paper + ink samples provided initially. (Although none were in the position that would indicate chloracetamide.) I don't know what that means, but it IS odd.
Personally, I don't find Diana Simpson's conclusion odd at all, it's perfectly logical. If ink+paper contains chloracetamide, and the paper alone does not, then it follows that the chloracetamide was in the ink.
And in regards to Voller, "He knew perfectly well that a forger could have done all sorts of tricks to try to pass a visual examination."
Reading Voller's comments, it's clear that although he thought of some ways to produce the same effect artifically they were primarily through chemical means which are not the only possibility here.
Ok, so there were 3 things :-)
Regards,
John |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
John
Whether or not Paul Feldman's rhetoric is any way questionable does not prove one way or the other whether or not the diary is genuine. It merely shows that like every other author on this subject that I have ever read he will undoubtedly present the "facts" in such a way as to suit his theory. Unless of course you are suggesting that he has deliberately lied or hidden evidence which would prove the diary to be a forgery.
If there is a forger out there then a highly skilled individual he must be. He has found a candidate for the role of the worlds most wanted killer who despite the efforts of God knows how many detractors over umpteen years, has still not been proven innocent of the charge. This despite the fact that these detractors have suddenly become experts in such fields as the chemistry of Victorian inks and the corrosive process of non ferrous metals.
How easy could it be to to find a candidate who
1. Had a genuine (If illogical) reason to hate women. (i.e. his wifes infidelity)
2. A drug habit which could easily make his reason desert him
3. Lived hundreds of miles away and yet had knowledge of the East End.
4.Despite his movements being much more traceable than many other suspects, including doctors appointments by the barrowload, it is impossible to place him anywhere at the time of any of the 5 canonical murders.
6. Whose demise works in with the end of the murder spree.
I agree that the diary does seem to fit too neatly with already known facts, and its sudden appearance was highly suspect, but for me the jury is still out
Alan
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
Jennifer.
If I remember rightly, the Maybricks that Paul Feldman unearthed are supposedly, (according to him), direct descendants of James but not Florrie. The suggestion being that they may have been Sarah Robertson’s offspring. However as there don’t appear to be any birth records that actually prove a link straight back to James, I’m rather sceptical myself.
Feldman seemed to be suggesting all sorts of dirty goings on with falsifying birth records and so on. I really don’t buy that one.
As some of them were spoken to in the mid 90s for Feldman’s book, it seems highly probable that there are still some alive today. However none of them really claimed to know anything about a family tradition linking Maybrick and Jack, so in my opinion it would be a bit of a dead end.
What might be interesting though, would be to do more work on that side of the Maybrick family tree, especially since the 1901 census has become available, to see if there is a “missing link” back to James. Would it get us any further on with the diary question though? I doubt it somehow.
Paul
|
ken proctor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
what an interesting and fascinating site.you people can be commended on your knowledge and expertise. thanks for sharing it with us "rookies" i will be in whitechapel this april perhaps then i will be able to come on this site and say " CASE SOLVED !!" } |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 7:03 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer (and Alan),
I don't know exactly where on the CD the Feldman thread was -- but there was a fairly lengthy analysis of Feldman's methodology and his prose and the spurious leaps in logic implied by his rhetorical questions. Perhaps Chris could point the way if he gets a chance to look it up.
Alan, coming up with "candidates" isn't that hard. Lots of people have done it and lots of people have fit their "candidate" in the frame in neat ways, including making the sorts of lists you've just made. Maybrick is just one more in a long line that goes from Lewis Carroll to Cornball's Sickert. But there's plenty of stuff already on the board archives about the problems in the diary text and with the handwriting and with all the rest of it.
The jury may be out for you -- but I think a reading of the old boards presents a thorough and convincing case against any hope of authenticity.
Still, don't take my word for that. Read the stuff on the old threads and decide for yourself.
All the best,
--John
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:48 pm: | |
“we can dismiss every single one of Feldy's arguments”
What a wonderful turn of phrase, Caz. Could this be one of the few points of general agreement in relation to the diary? 
Best Wishes
alex
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
