** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives: Archive through April 12, 2000
Author: Christopher T. George Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 09:14 am | |
Hi, David: Because Christopher-Michael is a fellow member of the Ripper Cabal of which you have spoken, I feel quite entitled to refer to him as my old chum. Actually, both CMD and I are colleagues in Casebook Productions. I am surprised that you have not noticed if you take the initials for Casebook Productions, "CP," add a diagonal downstroke to read "CR," and then transpose the letters, you get "RC"--for "Ripper Cabal." Of course, there might be alternative interpretations: "CR" for "Charles Rex"--protecting the honor of the British Crown and the heir apparent--or "RC" for Roman Catholic, both of which could leave the door open for new and improved conspiracy theories :-) Actually, CMD and I have met, at the time he and I went to Park Ridge, New Jersey, last May to sign the papers with the Marriott for this weekend's convention on the Whitechapel murders. Since our meeting, eleven months ago, we have been in close correspondence since he is both a founding member of Casebook Productions and a co-editor of Ripper Notes. He is also ably handling the publicity for the convention. We are also, as it happens, playwrights, CMD having written an acclaimed musical on the murders, and myself with one in process of being written. By contrast, while you and I have corresponded, I have not enjoyed the pleasure of meeting you. I also am aware that CMD shares some of my thoughts on the case, including taking a skeptical view of the Royal conspiracy theory and the Maybrick Diary. Where Christopher-Michael and I may depart is in regard to some minor details concerning the case. For example, CMD wrote a very fine and recommended article for the March issue of Ripper Notes, just published, in which he concludes that the Lusk kidney was a practical joke. I am not sure I accept his view, especially since I believe that one of the suspects wrote several of the letters, as I plan to discuss during my talk on the JtR letters this coming Saturday. Best regards Chris George, Editor, Ripper Notes Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth" conference@casebook-productions.org Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000 http://www.casebook-productions.org/conference.htm
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 07:14 am | |
Hiya Simon and all, Well said Simon, I appreciate your concern about accusing anyone living, and confirming that these are your opinions only. I take your point about the lack of any independent corroboration for Anne or Billy’s testimony that the diary had been in their family for years. But it strikes me as very odd that, since we were being asked to take their word for it, if they were lying and involved in forging it, why didn’t they ask us to take their word for it much sooner, ie as soon as they had the finished product in their grubby hands? If instant fame and fortune was the primary object, why fart about with the strange Devereux story and entrust their masterpiece to Mike, a loose cannon by anyone’s description, to deliver safely into a publisher’s hands? Why not say from the outset that they found the diary among some of Billy’s old bits and pieces? As for poor old Albert Johnson, perhaps he held on too long to his ‘priceless artefact’. He must have had a lot of blind faith that neither the diary nor watch would ever be proved fake. If he had for one moment thought that either would go the way of the Hitler Diaries, and his granddaughter’s legacy prove worthless, he would have done better to sell to the highest bidder while the going was good. Either he knew about the forgeries but accepted without question that they would be foolproof, or he really did come across the scratches as he said he did, and believed they must be genuine. I agree with you that Mike and Anne do not come across as skilled forger material. And their talents at conspiring together seem conspicuously lacking. Your theory of a professor, a ‘Mr Big’, waiting in the wings for the biggest slice of the cake yet to come has been discussed before. It sounds highly unlikely to me that such a one would have handed over complete control of his precious work to Mike. How will this Mr Big ever claim his share? He knows it can never be proved genuine. Has he some hold over Anne or Mike? Anyway you look at it, it doesn’t make much sense. Most people on these boards will cringe and distance themselves at the mere mention of conspiracy theories yet, oddly, some of the same ones lap this one up. At least you and I are consistent. You and I see conspiracy everywhere and nowhere respectively. :-) I agree with you that it is odd if Anne never mentioned the diary to Mike while they were married. All of us here are so taken with the case of JtR that we cannot imagine someone having this journal and behaving as Anne says she did. On pages 292-294 of Shirley Harrison’s updated paperback, Anne gives her own account, saying how she never meant the diary to be published, and telling of the big argument she had with Mike when he understandably wanted to profit from it. She concludes by saying she and her father had never been interested or cared who JtR was. I agree that does not explain why she would not have wanted to profit from it herself. But if no diary money had percolated down to Anne as late as 1994, at least this accords with her denial of trying to make a fortune from it. It’s a case of whether you believe she is telling blatant lies there or not. My best friend was a legal secretary for 18 years and reasonably well-read. When I told her about my deepening interest in JtR, she replied “Is he dead yet?” Most people I know wouldn’t be able to name a single suspect, and don't come anywhere close to understanding my interest and enthusiasm in the subject. Why Anne didn’t throw the thing away is another good question. Maybe it comes down to whether one is a hoarder or not, or what we do with stuff handed down through the family. I have a sheaf of old notes my dad made years ago. They look incredibly boring, I haven’t read through them all (his writing is tiny and virtually illegible), but there is no way I would throw them out, although I generally hate hoarding stuff. And I don’t think I’ve mentioned them to my hubby of 18 years. He certainly hasn’t seen them and wouldn’t know where to find them. Perhaps I’ll get him to write a novel round them someday... :-) Chris, I know I've already wished you all a happy convention elsewhere, but it won't hurt to do it again here, even on Maybrick territory. Can't wait to find out which suspect you have in mind for the author of some of the ripper letters (I can think of a couple of possibilities but I won't spoil the fun). Will you be sure to tell us miserable stay-at-homes as soon as possible after the weekend? Pretty please? Love, Caz
| |
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 07:53 am | |
Hiya Caz !I suspect 'Mr Big' has probably realised he won't be getting much of a cut now , but that doesn't mean he thought that way when the Diary was forged ! After all , he probably thought he had done a good enough job to ensure the experts recognised it as genuine. Little did he know of the army of Ripperologists ready to prove him wrong... Even if one believes that the Diary is 100% authentic , you have to accede that Ann and Mike have behaved strangely in this affair , but perhaps that is what happens to normal people when they come across such an artifact. Why give the Diary to Devereaux in the first place ? Surely to distance the Diary from the Barrett family ; it would be just as easy to say that Ann gave the Diary to Deveraux ( presuming she ever did ) after having it forged. Maybe it was Ann's idea all along , no wonder Mike feels angry about it now. He has been made to look a charlatan and a fool. I think trying to analyse the Diary is like trying to make a perfect cake mix : you keep stirring but its still full of lumps. No matter how much effort you put in , the lumps won't go away. Thus , you are left with a bowl full of sticky mess which might be used to make a cake oneday but probably won't ; thus you have to leave it to one side and hope it gets better at some point ( or a new cookbook comes out telling you how to get rid of the lumps ). This applies I think to whether you are trying to prove the Diary true or false ; the metaphor could also apply to the Royal Conspiracy theory and several others. You go back to it , you try to fix it , you end up covered with gooey stuff and you have to put it down again.
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 02:01 pm | |
Hiya Simon, So I wonder how ‘Mr Big’ feels about Mike et al getting all the benefit of his handiwork, while he sits somewhere getting nothing, waiting for the day when Mike decides to make another clean breast of it by naming and shaming our ‘Mr Big’? If involving Devereux was to ‘distance the Diary from the Barrett family’, why on earth did Mike first, then Anne, of their own volition, do all they could to focus it right back on themselves in 1994? ‘...no wonder Mike feels angry about it now. He has been made to look a charlatan and a fool’. How so exactly? I have to say that Mike did a very plausible impression of both when he first confessed to being the world’s greatest forger to the press in June 1994, with no encouragement from Anne, nor anyone else apparently! I would agree that Mike would have every right to feel angry if he had been kept in the dark about something that Anne knew about the diary. But if they were both involved in forging it, that makes little sense. Why would he be angry with Anne for effectively rescuing him from his faux pas of admitting to forgery? Mike had just taken the blame and here was his estranged wife trying to take it away again and dumping the whole thing fairly and squarely on her own, and her sick father’s doorstep! You’d think he’d have been grateful in the long run. I love your cake mix scenario, some of us leave it to one side out of pure distaste, others want to microwave it into oblivion, while a few dedicated Delia Smiths just keep kneading away at those lumpy bits, hoping the cake won’t turn out like one of mine. I’m not sure about ending up covered with gooey stuff though, so I’ll be sure to knead gently. :-) I am not trying to prove the diary true or false. I’m not even trying to convince others that it may not be a modern forgery. I’m just trying to make sense of it for myself IF it is a recent fake, and am grateful for anyone’s insight into the lives of the people and events at the centre. In this respect, I think we should value Peter Birchwood’s investigative skills to bring out the ‘inside story’, which we don’t seem to get from the diary books. You and I could then test our theories and gut feelings against the facts, and the greater understanding we would have of the personalities involved. If we could find one piece of hard evidence which indisputedly proves that one of our small band of merrie men created the diary, or put the scratches on the watch, we could all stop kneading and I could take up cookery lessons... Love, Caz
| |
Author: David M. Radka Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 09:29 pm | |
To the lovely CAZ, Thank you for your generosity above. My fondest regret is that I must miss the upcoming gathering, and thus also the chance to kiss your hand. David
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 04:07 am | |
Hi David, old buddy, and all, I'm afraid my hand won't be anywhere near New Jersey either this weekend, more's the pity. I was looking forward to all the kisses. I guess I shall be stuck here in ripperland using my imagination. Perhaps Beggy or Andy Aliffe will plant a few smackers on you all from me. Love, Caz
| |
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 06:26 am | |
If you want the simplest solution to the Diary problem Caz then I think it is this : the Diary we have now is a transcript of Maybrick's actual Diary made sometime around 1910-1930 in an old photoalbum , the watch is genuine and somebody sold it to the shop when they heard about the Diary ( they didn't want to keep such an evil artifact anymore ) and Ann and Billy were telling the truth.But thats something I don't think I can believe since the Diary seems such baloney. And Maybrick was too old to be the Ripper too , according to the sightings.
| |
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 11:44 am | |
Having said that , the Diary and watch could have been forged over the last 100 years by anyone who had the following : (i) A basic knowledge of the Maybrick family and the court case , not that hard to find , and (ii) Access to the police records before 1987 , access to a few books and articles recently printed afterwards. However you then must accept that Ann and/or Billy Graham were lying.Its just possible that the Diary was forged around 1910 by a relative of Billy and deposited with the solicitors for Billy to recieve as a kind of legacy , a priceless treasure. But who out of Billy's relatives would have had that knowledge ? The photo of MJK was printed in France in 1890 and shown only to police trainees afterwards until the 70s I think , yet the Diary writer had seen not only the photo but recognised the letters on the wall as well. This puts the Diary as being forged post-1987 ( as does the info about the Tin matchbox ) when the letters had been recognised. Yet the tests date it to about 1921 , give or take 10 years. I don't believe the Diary is authentic but there are mysteries about it which are puzzling I think , as Caz says.
| |
Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 07 April 2000 - 04:58 am | |
Rod McNeil's ion migration test, which gave a median date of 1921 for the writing in the "Diary", may be unhelpfully flawed. Joe Nickell, a document examiner who studied the book as part of the Rendell investigation, points to a nuber of problems with the technique in his book Discovering Forgery, including other instances in which McNeil's tests could be proved to have given a false result, suggesting that the document was much older than was actually the case. Although Nickell's book does not centre on the "Diary", he does make a number of references to it. He details a string of tests, failure in any one of which would lead to the conclusion that a document was forged. The "Maybrick" volume fails not just one or two, but virtually all of them. All the Best Guy
| |
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 07 April 2000 - 06:01 am | |
If the ion migration test was flawed , then that almost certainly makes the Diary a modern forgery , thank goodness for that ! That 1921 date had been giving me no end of trouble.Thanks Guy , you're a saviour !
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 07 April 2000 - 07:35 am | |
Hi Simon, Guy, (Everyone?), The truth is never simple, Simon. (Tell that to Bruce Paley. Hi Leanne. :-)) But now you seem to be working on different cake mix lumps to mine. Can we go back to the good points you were making previously and thrash out some more lumpy bits together? You and I could be a pair of intrepid investigators, looking for corruption in high places (well, Liverpool is north of Watford), using Peter Birchwood as our trusty anchor and ‘inside’ man. If we can try to keep our theories within the confines of the understood facts, backed by reference to the published information, the army of fair-minded observers of this particular board, interested in establishing the truth (oh all right, both of ‘em :-)), would be more likely to stay tuned. I think we need to know much more about the individuals making up our band of merrie ‘forgers’, don’t you? (Where are you Peter, when we need you?) Going back to Albert Johnson, have you picked up anything from what you have read to show he has been deliberately dishonest? And have you read what Colin Wilson writes about him in the foreword of Shirley Harrison’s first paperback? (1994, page x) We must try to base our speculation about individual personalities on what we have read about them, rather than what we feel ‘must’ be the case when we look at the bigger picture. Same with Anne. What have you established about her that tells you she would not possess the skill to forge the diary (ie her background, education and interests, before and since its emergence)? Conversely, what evidence have you found that she possesses the character, ability and desire to sustain a hugely complex web of deceit, involving her friends and family, to this very day? Don’t forget Peter Birchwood’s point about Mike reaping all the early rewards for her pains. After she split up with Mike, it would be interesting to find out exactly what sort of money was coming in from the diary and how it was spent. Did Anne ask Mike for any of the filthy lucre? Did he put some away for his beloved only daughter, Caroline? Or did he squander the lot on booze? These are the sort of questions we need to ask before we assume Anne was in it for gain. What about the ‘skilful’ forger you suggest may have pulled the strings? What do you make of the ‘obvious mistakes’ which have been put forward to suggest our forger was not so clever? Such as no attempt made to copy James M’s handwriting? And you said yourself that removing the preliminary pages was ‘the one thing that gives it away’. Do you think your ‘Mr Big’ would have taken into account the ‘frontline’ of scientists, ready with their forensic tests, before his creation was subjected to the ‘army of Ripperologists’? You suspect ‘Mr Big’ has realised that he won’t be getting ‘much of a cut now’. Is this because Mike said he forged the diary? Was this ‘Mr Big’ taking too big a cut for Mike’s liking, prompting his confession? Again, at this time, according to Peter Birchwood, none of the money was reaching Anne. So was there someone else, Peter’s ‘someone’ perhaps, with a financial interest to protect? (Peter may even have a name for us if we ask him nicely on his return.) But why, if this ‘Mr Big’ and Anne invented the new provenance together, hasn’t Mike, excluded and angry, ever even hinted (as far as I’m aware) at his existence? It would seem an obvious way to get back at his fellow-conspirators. Even better if he could give a half-decent account (or produce the tiniest bit of solid proof) of how they all forged the diary together. It makes sense for us to continue putting all these people under the microscope, as Peter is doing (and just like the diary has been). We could be missing the tiniest chink in one of their stories, which could kill the diary stone dead without having to look inside the bloody thing ever again. Have a good weekend all. Love, Caz
| |
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 08 April 2000 - 10:05 pm | |
Excuse me for butting in on the conversation (especially since I'm ignorant of many of the facts) but I was under the impression that the ink in the diary was shown to contain chloroacetamide, which positively dates it to post-1960. (I read this in Stewart's book on Tumblety pgs. 175-176) Isn't this more or less irrefutable? (That's not a rhetorical question; I don't know and am only asking....) RJP
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 10 April 2000 - 08:08 am | |
Hi RJ, Guy, Simon, RJ, you aren’t ‘butting in’ at all, the more the merrier as far as I’m concerned. Anyone who has questions should be encouraged to voice them. But God, I’m thick as a plank when it comes to the science stuff. I’ll have a bash, then let’s see if we can’t get some others to help out as I get hopelessly confused with it all. Going back to Guy’s post first, I haven’t read Discovering Forgery by Joe Nickell, so I can’t comment on its references to the diary. Guy, are you able to itemise the ‘string of tests’? Did the diary fail hundreds of ‘em, and which ones did it pass, if it wasn’t a total walkover? :-) And were all the failures included in the Rendell report? (Has anyone got a complete copy, and would I understand it anyway??) Does failure of the tests automatically make the diary a modern forgery, or is it a case of which expert we laymen choose to rely on? Surely, if just one test had conclusively proved the diary to be post 1987, ‘its time-wasting stupidities’ would not have lingered on ‘to dog historians for years to come’, as Melvin Harris puts it on page 202 of The True Face of JtR. Melvin also states, on page 188, that a ‘thorough’ investigation led by Rendell was commissioned, but then tells us ‘it had to be a rushed job’. And Feldy states, on page 105 of JtR, The Final Chapter: ‘It has been said that Kenneth Rendell had ‘concerns’ over Rod McNeil’s tests. Then why did he employ him?’ Seems a fair question. The suggestion is that McNeil’s ion migration test was only conclusively discredited after he gave the median date of 1921 for the diary. Does Joe Nickell give an account of McNeil’s ‘fall’ in his book? Feldy quotes McNeil on page 96: "... may be possible that long term storage of the document retarded ion movement, thereby creating a later date than the test should otherwise indicate, but I have no experimental evidence to suggest whether this is possible or probable. A control study of this proposed hypothesis would require 20+ years to evaluate." Feldy goes on to state: ‘The scientists whose services Kenneth Rendell had utilised had both, at the very least, concluded that they could not find anything that suggested the diary was modern. Rendell himself believed that the handwriting was of an early twentieth-century style, not a late Victorian one. The conclusion of his report was that the diary was an early-twentieth-century forgery.’ Whereas Melvin, on page 192 of The True Face states: ‘In the end the [Rendell report] examiners were convinced that the diary was a recent product, probably only a few years old. This seems to clash with the results of the independent ion migration test which dated the ink at 1921, plus or minus twenty years. But this particular test has been developed by one man only, as such its value is open to question.’ Guy, you wrote that Joe Nickell points out ‘other instances in which McNeil’s tests could be proved to have given a false result, suggesting that the document was much older than was actually the case’. Compared with what McNeil himself has to say about possible retardation of the ion movement, doesn’t this just indicate that the test could be flawed either way? So won’t it remain of dubious value until the effects of storage conditions, humidity, temperature etc, are known and can be added to the equation? As it is, the test gave a date of 1921, ‘plus or minus twenty years’. So who has the last word on which direction the test flaws have sent the diary, and by how many years? Paul Feldman? Melvin Harris? Or the scientists? Even the one man who has developed this test admits it may take another 20 years to perfect. Where do we go from here? Remove McNeil from the equation, cancel out his 1921 median date (for a good few years at any rate), and keep Simon happy for now? Now to RJ’s question about the chloroacetamide. Shirley Harrison, on pages 367-8 of her updated paperback, gives us the results of the Leeds University tests: ‘The first test indicated the presence of a minute amount of chloroacetamide – which Leeds attributed to contamination from the control.’ I’m not sure why they suspected contamination. Was it because the amount was too small to represent the usual percentage they would expect to find in an ink containing this ingredient? Anyway, they decided to conduct a second test, not at Shirley’s request, which showed: No chloroacetamide. Shirley tells us on pages 364-365: ‘Melvin Harris, Nick Warren, editor of Ripperana, and the Sunday Times commissioned Analysis for Industry to examine six unused dots of the Diary ink contained in a hard unopened gelatine capsule.’ Chloroacetamide was found. But then Leeds University ‘was surprised that they [the ink samples] were transported in gelatine ‘which has an astonishing ability to absorb and interact with anything it contacts.’’ So, again, it looks like you pays your money and takes your choice. Does one negative result prove anything? And how likely is it that two independent tests could get contaminated with an outside source of chloroacetamide? Finally, going back to our little group of modern-day ‘forgers’, I was particularly struck by a sentence of Melvin’s on page 191: ‘Knowing the psychology of forgers is almost as important as knowing how to analyse handwriting...' I couldn’t agree more! Love, Caz
| |
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 10 April 2000 - 11:06 am | |
I would say that Anne has a personality which could be deceitful : she gave the Diary to Deveraux and told him not to answer questions about its provenance ( alledgedly ). Then she kept quiet for years about where it had originally come from. It wouldn't take much to add to her story ' I forged the Diary and...( gave it to Tony ) '.I have the 1994 edition of Harrison's book and if I recall correctly , Colin Wilson was convinced Albert Johnson was honest. But if Johnson was a convincing liar , that could be why he was given the watch in the first place - nobody would suspect he wasn't telling the truth. Just a thought... I feel more and more that Mike was innocent of forging the Diary , this is indicated by the amount of research he did in following it up when he was given it. Which suggests he really was given it. So we must look at Anne Barrett - in my opinion she must be the one who was duplicitious and deceitful , she could weave plans and keep secrets ( the Diary's existence ) for years , she seems a slippy customer. Mike can't accuse Mr Big of forging the Diary as he doesn't know who he is , and he can't prove for sure his wife did it. But he believes the book is a forgery. So he says he did it , just to keep from having to talk about it , to distance himself from the whole thing. Meanwhile the cheques keep rolling in... Anne needed a man's handwriting for the Diary , so what about Billy Graham himself as ' Mr Big '? Or Tony Devereaux ? I can't explain why they didn't try to copy the handwriting of Maybrick , perhaps they didn't think any of Maybrick's handwriting still existed. And the missing pages - perhaps they didn't think that anybody would question them. Anne could have forged the Diary , perhaps not for fame but for money for her and Mike and Caroline. Being a scrapman held not a great future for Mike and probably didn't bring much cash in : Liverpool is a depressed city. I think Mike's comment that he wanted to buy a greenhouse with the money from the book is telling here : perhaps the Barretts just wanted a few extra home comforts. The early 90s in Britain were quite hard years ; I was just out of university and unemployed myself , and I could have certainly done with more money for my then girlfriend and I than I had at the time. Nevertheless , the Maybrick Diary not being in Maybrick's hand surely cannot mean it is more likely to be genuine ! Can it ? Look at the Abberline Diaries - they also are written in several old volumes ( one even a PROPER diary for 1896 ) but they are not in Abberline's handwriting either. Whoever forged them didn't even bother to check what Abberline's handwriting was like either , but they thought they could still pass 'em off as genuine : perhaps forgers aren't that clever after all. Keep wading through the lumps Caz !
| |
Author: Guy Hatton Monday, 10 April 2000 - 11:12 am | |
Hi Caz! If you bear with me for a while, I'll try to provide a more detailed precis of Nickell's conclusions regarding the Diary, including the part relating to the ion migration test. (Incidentally, it appears that in my haste I gave the title of the book wrongly - the correct title is Detecting Forgery. Apologies!) I don't particularly feel qualified to draw many firm conclusions from his findings, though they may be useful to others. To answer a couple of your questions for now, though: 1.) In broad terms, failure in the tests would not necessarily condemn any given document as a modern forgery, but merely, as Sugden puts it in relation to the "Abberline diaries", not true bill. 2.)The number of failed tests does not run into the hundreds, and off hand, I do not recall any which the Maybrick item could be said conclusively to have passed, though I shall check this. As to the rushed nature of the testing - to my recollection, Nickell tells us that the "Diary" was only made available to document examiner Maureen Casey Owens for a single day. The implication is that this was decided by the owners of the Diary, and was contrary to his (Nickell's) preferred timescale for a thorough examination. All the Best Guy
| |
Author: Guy Hatton Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 09:03 am | |
Caz et al. - For reference, I’ve reproduced below the section on scanning auger microscopy from Joe Nickell’s book (Detecting Forgery - Forensic Investigation of Documents, University Press of Kentucky 1996, pp 192-4 Scanning auger microscopy A relatively new technique to determine the age of ink was developed by Roderick J. McNeil, an analytical biochemist who is director of his own Rocky Mountain Research Laboratories in Polson, Montana. The technique grew out of McNeil’s interest in the Shroud of Turin (which he reportedly believes genuine, despite the scientific tests to the contrary), and is based on the concept that “the migration of ions from the ink is directly proportional to time.” McNeil’s technique, “scanning auger microscopy” (SAM) measures the ion diffusion of certain inks - especially iron-gallotannate ink - in paper and parchment. This migration of ions is extremely minute, only 1/2000th of an inch in a thousand years, yet SAM is reputedly highly accurate. Some consider the technique virtually infallible and point out that it succeeded in proving Hofmann’s “The Oath of a Freeman” was a forgery when other analyses indicated that the ink was appropriately old.McNeil himself states: The majority of documents submitted to the author are from the American revolutionary-constitutional period, 1760-1820, and a surprising number of forgeries have been detected. Of the 122 documents submitted from this time period, twenty-six were forgeries. While these might have been detected by some other subjective technique, all of these documents had been authenticated by handwriting analysis or paper or historical analysis, or all three. One of the most surprising aspects of this work to date has been the discovery of readily available paper from the late 1600s to date. Certainly paper of the proper date is readily available to the well-informed forger, making paper dating a poor choice in document authentication. Drawbacks to the techniques (sic.) are that it is “extremely costly” and that - according to the document examiner George J. Throckmorton - “few laboratories in the United States have the necessary equipment, and only McNeil is considered an expert in the technique.” Also, that SAM is not infallible is indicated by the “draft” of the Gettysburg Address owned by Lloyd Ostendorf. According to McNeil’s report to Ostendorf, “the body of the document showed a median age of 1869, plus or minus 10 years, based on seven samples measured in triplicate.” (The inscription on the verso showed a slightly later median age, 1875, plus or minus fifteen years, probably because of sampling problems.) McNeil stated: “My overall conclusion regarding the document is that it is genuine; that is, that it was created in the time period purported by the document.” He added, “Obviously, this type of testing can draw no conclusions about who created the document, only when it was created. Nevertheless, Ostendorf concluded that McNeil’s tests proved the document genuine, since nineteenth-century forgers lacked access to the Hay copy (not released until 1916) to which the Ostendorf document bears a most suspicious resemblance. Actually, however, the handwriting evidence is decisive. A noted forensic document examiner, Maureen Casey Owens who had twenty-five years’ experience as an expert with the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory, stated, “The uncanny similarity in handwriting characteristics is evident not only in form and proportions, but also particularly significant in writing movement, beginnings, endings, and pen emphasis throughout the writings. Even margins and line spacings are close.” She concluded: “These similarities are too striking to be coincidence and are highly suggestive of simulation.” Exactly where McNeil’s technique failed remains to be determined. Perhaps the faulty SAM date had something to do with the suspicious ultraviolet fluorescence of the paper (mentioned in earlier chapters); that is, possibly some artificial aging technique was employed by the forger. As McNeil later told the Manuscript Society News (somewhat lamely): “It is unfortunate that I had a situation before me where there was no adequate coordination of all the information. I did not have access to other information I wish I had such as that the paper fluoresced. Dr. Joe Nickell was good enough to contact me on his own about this. Overall, I stand behind my results. I am fairly confident the paper is from the right period.” Actually, the paper is from approximately the right period, but the ink was clearly applied in this century - probably as recently as the document’s nonexistent provenance suggests. The erroneous SAM date might also have been in part because of difficulties McNeil had in performing the tests. As he reported to Ostendorf: “Since you desired that the document not be harmed in any way, sampling for Scanning Auger Microscopy (SAM) was quite difficult due to grounding problems. The sample was rolled around a two inch diameter metal bar and rotated in sequents to locate adequate concentrations of ink for sampling.” Also, he reported, “a very high angle of incidence relative to the surface had to be maintained to minimize noise and optimize grounding.” This one error should not cause us to dismiss McNeil’s scanning auger microscopy dating method. Unfortunately, current evidence shows he also obtained an erroneous date (1921, plus or minus 12 years) for the forged Jack the Ripper diary, one potential problem having been the diary’s unsized (and thus extra absorbent) paper. In contrast, a British examiner used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages. Such errors were almost inevitable - even predictable. As James Gilreath of the Library of Congress’ Rare and Special Collections Division asked in his book The Judgment of Experts (which is about Hofmann’s “The Oath of a Freeman”): “Who can doubt that an enterprising and knowledgeable (or even lucky) forger might beat the McNeil test at some time in the future?” As Gilreath told Ostendorf: “McNeil’s test, like every other analysis, must be used in conjunction with the full range of information about the document, and considered with a clear and open understanding of the manuscript’s provenance.”
| |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 10:26 am | |
." But the introduction of the Graham family link story might have been an almost-impossible to resist suggestion to someone who saw the diary situation ending up rather like the Hitler Diaries and leading to the stop of what had become a very welcome income." Now I said that in my original post not dreaming that anyone would believe that I meant anyone other than Anne or Mike. Now Shirley states in her 1998 pb edition p. 316: "Michael Barrett and Anne Barrett between them have earned exactly the same from the book...as I have, although since their separation Anne Graham has received 25% of the gross sums payable to us." They separated around January of 1994. The implication above is that once their separation became formal, the royalties became split three ways. Therefore Anne Graham had at the least, a motive for keeping the Diary going. Mike's "confessions" have always raised more questions than they answered but it's clear if we refer to Feldy's pb edition pp 152 on that before the Liverpool Post story in July 1994, Mike had been calling Feldy trying to put Anne's name in the frame. Now unfortunately we do not have any information as to what really broke up the Barrett marriage. Drink and violence have been mentioned but these were factors that had apparently been a part of the Barrett menage for some years. Is it coincidental that just at the same time the diary's original provenance was failing and Feldy and his team were chasing electricians and investigating Mike with the tact and diplomacy of a herd of charging bison.(p. 157 op cit.) Is it also coincidental that around the same time (actually 21st April 1994) both Barretts sign an agreement involving the transfer of the Diary to another company for Ł1. Let's look at Tony Devereux. We don't know much about him except that he worked in the printing business for the Post and Echo was probably a Catholic and didn't want his ex-wife to have any part of his estate.His family deny that he had any part in the Diary situation and the only connection that's ever been suggested is his daughter's statement that he had read a book: "Murder Mayhem and Mystery" that belonged to Mike and which covered in one chapter the Maybrick murder. Now it's typical of Feldy's research methods that having given us (on p. 155) this basic information: that Devereux had the book and that it belonged to Mike, he says: "Another piece of the jigsaw. This time supporting Mike's story. Devereux, at the very least was aware of the diary's existence." Of course it doesn't do anything of the sort and nothing here tells us that Devereux had any knowledge whatsoever of the diary. I've already given my opinion: that Mike picked Devereux as the diary conduit initially for the very good reason that he was safely dead and couldn't confirm or deny the story. Why does Anne bring him in to her version? Well, as I said earlier, we don't have any information about what diary-linked discussions were going on in casa Barrett at the time of their split but it seems to me that if, as I suspect, the "I was Florrie Maybrick's granddaughter" story started being built after phone calls with Feldy and correspondence from Keith, the obvious thing to do was to look at Mike's original story to see where a Graham ownership of the diary could be fitted. Mike, wisely, gives no history of the diary pre-Devereux. It's therefore easier to say that Anne herself gave the thing to Devereux with the request that he pass it on to Mike than to omit Tony completely. The Graham story can then slot seamlessly into the pre-Devereux diary history. Whether this was done by both Barretts or just Anne, I can't say at the moment. The Formby-Yapp story is interesting and may even be true as a family tale. The first one to tell Feldy about it is of course Anne and it's later that her father Billy also tells the story to Keith. It's difficult to prove or disprove. Could Alice Yapp have been friendly with Elizabeth Formby? Possibly, although there seems no evidence for the story that Elizabeth Formby had a laundry and that Battlecrease House used that Laundry. For those interested, Elizabeth Formby was 27 in 1881, born in Kidderminster. Her husband was Donald, a cook 35 years old and born Liverpool. Her daughter Edith was 4 and there was a son Donald and another daughter Alice. They lived at 38 Lundie St. Everton. Handwriting: well there are in existence plenty of samples of both Barrett's handwriting in the form of contracts, letters etc. As to the problem of who knew Anne's phone number, I'm sure that there is a pretty reasonable explanation; I mention it to show one more example of the degree of carelessness in Feldy's book. Now Mark Goeder who may be in Germany from his site details, asks us:"I mean, lets be honest with another. Maybrick isnt nothing special.How many of you knew of his existance before the diary surfaced? " I think that most of us can say that we were at least familiar with the Maybrick case long before the poor guy was fingured as JtR. Has there been any evidence showing the diary to be a fake? Plenty. This is already long enough: I don't want to go into all the details which others have already mentioned. Unfortunately Mark can't have been reading all of this.section. His post is another example of "proving" the case from details in a book which itself is highly dubious. I would take point with him on one crucial point and that is that we do not have to prove that the diary is a fake: the diary supporters have to put their case convincingly with suitable evidence. Too many posts are of the sort that say: "The diary says this is so, and so it must be true." Two similar instances come to mind: "The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." One postulates an international Jesuit conspiracy the other an international Jewish conspiracy. Both books are fakes and both, to an extent are still believed in as true although the latter has done a lot more harm than the former. If there is any evidence outside the diary itself which proves Maybrick to be JtR, please tell us and remember that everything in the diary may well have been written less than ten years ago and therefore can not be considered rationally to be true unless it's backed up independently. Mark also says: "I think that Mabrick was involved because it makes sense.(forgrt barret for a min). He had the time He would have had no alibi(but he was never asked) He was there at the time(weekends) He wrote it down He had a motiv He was mad He knew more than anyone else at that time. He was using drugs " Let me try to answer this. Maybrick was a busy man with a lot of family/business interests. He may have had the time to travel 200 miles to Whitechapel but then again so could many thousand of men. He may or may not have had an alibi. Unlike the Duke of Clarence, his doings were not a matter of public record. I would hope that Feldy's research team would have combed newspaper archives to make certain that he wasn't mentioned as being present in Liverpool on a murder night. I can only assume that they found nothing. There is nothing except the diary to show that he was in Whitechapel weekends or indeed any day. The diary is not in his handwriting and you cannot prove that he wrote it by relying on the diary. It is difficult to think of any motive that he may have had to hideously slaughter and mutilate several women. You can only say that he knew more than anyone else by assuming the truth of the diary and even a first-grade logic lesson would tell you that you can't do that. And arsenic and strychnine (taken by millions of people all over the world in homeopathic doses) are not the sort of drugs that turn you into a deranged fiend. The watch. I'm afraid that I've always looked on this as an opportunist thing. The diary comes out; is it possible to make a bit of cash on its back? Do we know what has happened recently with the watch or has it vanished in the wake of Melvyn Fairclough's "Mary Kelly's crucifix" story where a crucifix that might actually have been owned by one of the victims is found in the belongings of a grandson of Florrie Maybrick. Or is that to much to believe?
| |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 10:28 am | |
Caroline Anne: As you are in touch (via Paul Begg) with Keith Skinner I suggest you ask either of them to post a copy of that letter on the boards or, at the least, send you a copy
| |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 05:41 am | |
Hi All, Hi Simon, Johnson could have been given the watch because ‘nobody would suspect he wasn’t telling the truth’? Yet Mike was let loose on the diary, presumably by people who knew his relationship with the truth only too well! Talk about a change of routine! So you think Mike confessed to forging the diary ‘to keep from having to talk about it, to distance himself from the whole thing.’ Reminds me of a song by Dr.Hook, with the words, ‘You sure picked a funny place to hide’! ‘Meanwhile the cheques keep rolling in…’ Seems to me Mike picked a pretty effective way of helping book sales dwindle, directly affecting the supply of cash for his drinking habit! I’d like to know exactly how Mike thought confessing was going to help with anything in his life. It doesn’t appear to add up from what we know. Of course the diary handwriting has always been one of the most powerful arguments against Maybrick being the author. To be absolutely even-handed, the same expert analysis should (if it hasn’t already) be applied to the handwriting of our little group of suspected modern forgers. At least it might narrow the field. We have yet to prove the author’s intent to pass off his/her work as genuine. This would be the only reason for making the writing look like Maybrick’s. The fact that no attempt was made leaves room for doubt that fraud was ever intended. It’s easy to say we don’t have to prove the diary a fake. But by stating it is a modern fake, created solely to deceive the public, we are actively accusing certain individuals, becoming judge and jury, and I happen to feel there is some responsibility to find out as much about these people as we can before we pronounce any of them guilty as charged. Hi Guy, Thanks so much for the information, I’m trying desperately to get to grips with it. :-) With regard to the Rendell report, Melvin Harris wrote (on p188 of The True Face of JtR): ‘It had to be a rushed job, since publication day was looming fast, and many questions had to remain unanswered.’ I guess by ‘publication day’ he means the US publishers, Warner Books, who cancelled its contract when the report’s verdict was: FAKE. I didn’t mean to blame either ‘side’ for the rush, I only felt it right to comment that a rushed job, for whatever reason, cannot be as thorough as is desirable in pursuit of the truth, whatever that turns out to be. It strikes me that Anne Graham is possibly the only person alive today who knows for certain sure which scientists have been the most accurate with their dating methods. Quite a thought! Finally, hi Peter, Thanks for getting back to me. I’ll have to have a good old think about all the points you make. Meanwhile, there is still that letter from Keith to Anne which you introduced into the discussion, showing how much more inside info you have than most of us. Pity you can’t share the whole letter with us. Good tip about asking Paul Begg though, thanks! I notice Keith has made a rare post on the Chapman board, so maybe he will be able to read this too. I have not asked Paul for advice on contacting Keith, but when he is back from the US, and I get my emails back up and running, I may well take you up on your suggestion. Love, Caz
| |
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 09:50 am | |
Hiya Caz !If Jim Maybrick didn't write the Diary then whoever did wanted us to believe he did. Those references to Battlecrease , and the children , and ' the whore ' and the ' city of whores ' seem to prove it. Mike Barratt could be implicated in the Diary's production , but I feel his actions and all the research he did suggest that he could also very well be innocent. This would explain his anger at Anne for decieving him and their subsequent separation. Okay , so it might not make much sense to keep telling everyone you forged it when you didn't , but neither does it make much sense to keep telling them if you did forge it. In either case the objective ( for Mike ) is to avoid getting into a long winded chat about the damn book with eager Ripperologists ! He is probably happy to keep getting the royalties , but the urge to disassociate himself with the Diary is almost certainly his primary concern in the matter. " When you're in love with a beautiful woman , its hard..." (fnarr!fnarr!) And if you want to test for forgery , I would suggest checking the handwriting of the following people : Anne Barrett , Mike Barrett , Billy Graham , Albert Johnson , Tony Devereaux. It would be worth checking Mikes library as well , to find out what Ripper books it contains.
|