|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through October 26, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through October 26, 2000
Author: Ennui
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 04:12 pm |        | Mr. Street,
So are only those who are extensively published entitled to ask questions on this board? In that case, please post a list of the volumes you have produced on any subject. If the venerated author does not wish to waste his precious time with us ignorant peons, he is welcome not to participate and thereby sully himself with our ignorant questions. |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 05:31 pm | | Why is it,that every few months,there are posters on this topic,who don't appear elsewhere on these boards and whose only interest seems to be denigrating those who find the Diary of any interest at all?...I may not be a 'bored housewife' but frankly I find the tone offensive (that's me set up as the next target..bugger!!!)
Steve S. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 07:18 pm | | KANE & MY LETTER TO ROD GREEN (P2)
The facts are that Feldman is knowingly misquoting my work. The three books alluded to cover the Diary as a Ripper confession and this is made quite clear by my words "Just three source books are all you need to provide the crime facts and their backgrounds" (Page 197). That can, and will be, substantiated, indeed I have already promised to run the material first on the Internet. But I was not prepared to cooperate with Feldman on this issue, since his behaviour had made cooperation impossible. (His very book discloses many examples of such unacceptable behaviour)
Fido knew my position when he spoke to me. There was no evasion on my part, and no inability to answer. just a direct refusal to waste my time by becoming embroiled in Feldman's antics. And this was further emphasised, when I wrote to Fido on 10th March 1995. So, if Feldman is quoting Fido correctly, this is detrimental for that writer's reputation and it exposes the promises made on page 89 (letter to Rendell) as worthless, since the same promises had been made to me, and, as we now see, were never honoured.
On page 139 Feldman claims that I had examined Devereux's Will and "..concluded that Mr Cain, one of the witnesses, was the forger.." and he had mysteriously 'disappeared around the time that the diary became public'" This misrepresents my views in two ways. The idea that Mr Kane (the real spelling) had disappeared was not mine, but was the conclusion of a newspaper reporter who tried to trace him. And I have never identified Mr Kane as the forger. What I did say, and stand by, is that his handwriting on the Will bore an uncanny resemblance to the writing in the Diary. But it was only a small sample; too small to indict anyone.
Every competent investigator has a duty to clear people of suspicion, and it was in that spirit that an attempt was made to secure lengthy samples of Mr Kane's handwriting. This was not undertaken by me, but by a reporter known to me. Unfortunately and, rather foolishly, Kane drew suspicion upon himself by first denying that the writing on the Will was his; then by refusing to show a single sample of his handwriting. Later on, when interviewed by DS Thomas, he finally admitted that the Will writing was his. But this man's health is so poor that no further enquiries were made by me, or by the police, and he was never pressured into supplying samples of his writing.
"...Harris could consider himself fortunate not to be sued." writes Feldman. The idea that this perfectly legitimate investigation was in some way actionable, is a fantasy on Feldman's part. And it is a bizarre statement to come from a man who has not hesitated to libel me when it suits him.
Finally, let me register this: every reference to me in this book is erroneous; even small points are wrong and proveably so.
Yours sincerely,
MELVIN HARRIS
4 Sept 1997 |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 05:28 am | | I feel obliged to point out for the benefit of Mr Street that Caroline Morris's figure about the quanity of chloroacetamide found in the 'diary' ink tested by AFI comes from an erroneous entry in The Jack the Ripper A to Z and that the error belongs to the authors of the A to Z. However, her point remains valid. Because we do not know the quantity of chloroacetamide found in the ink sample tested, it is not possible to say whether it is consistent with what might be expected if the ink used was Diamine, in which chloroacetamide was used as a preservative. It therefore cannot be said whether the chloroacetamide was an ingredient used in the manufacture of the ink or whether it found its way into the ink by some other means, as was suggested by John C. Roberts, Professor of Paper Science at UMIST. The results of the AFI test must therefore be regarded as inconclusive.
Mr Street's might also like to reconsider his other references to Caroline Morris. Melvin Harris openly criticised two authors, Keith Skinner and Paul Feldman, accusing the former of an 'ugly invention' and the latter of not having contacted McCormick in May 1993. Caroline has simply asked Harris to substantiate those statements.
Melvin has also written much about the "Eight Little Whores" poem, which has been listed by other posters here as evidence for post-1959 composition of the 'diary'. Caroline asked Melvin to supply the evidence on which is based the claim that the diary rhymes were based on "Eight Little Whores". Melvin appears to be admitting that the only evidence is Feldman's claim that it is. Since Feldman could be wrong, as apparently he is wrong about so much else, then the 'diary' rhymes needn't have been based on "Eight Little Whores" at all, but on some other counting rhyme or on no rhymes at all, being the invention of the author (whoever that was). The "Eight Little Whores" argument would thus be wholly irrelevant to dating the 'diary'.
Whatever one's opinion of the 'diary' and the debate surronding it, Caroline Morris would seem to be trying to establish the facts. Protective as he is of calls upton Melvin Harris's valuable time, I assume that Mr Street nevertheless appreciates that Caroline Morris is sincerely pursuing of fairness and accuracy and in so doing raising some interesting points. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 06:40 am | | Hi All,
I'm glad to see just how much notice Melvin is paying to Barry Street's advice. And thank you Melvin, for coming in so promptly with some of your evidence. In future, I can just whisper the word 'tamper' gently in your shell-like, and know that you will oblige me with a few answers. 
Now then, back to business.
You wrote:
'A message in from Alan Gray confirms that the Sphere book Vol 2 (plus other vols) was owned by Mike Barrett BEFORE the Diary emerged. (Confirmed by his sister)'
Can we presume that Mike's sister has not only seen the book since it came into Alan Gray's possession, but that she can confirm that she recognised it as being the copy she saw at Mike's home before the diary emerged?
'Mike first engaged him [Gray] at 11 AM Sunday 14th August 1994 (to search for his wife). Further engaged him to expose the Diary. Then (Sept) told the story behind the lines "O costly..."'
So there were some three months between Mike's 'confession' to the press, in which he seemed determined to prove his importance as the world's greatest forger, and when he finally came up with the 'proof' in private.
'NOTE WELL:- the Sphere volume had been left with Mike's solicitor LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and the 'confession.'
Any actual dates for 'LONG BEFORE' please? Mike's break with Anne came way back in January 1994, so the fact that he'd lodged the all-important book with his solicitor by then suggests that he couldn't possibly have forgotten in June 1994 that he had the indisputable proof he needed to show his prowess and ensure the downfall of his arch-enemy, Feldy.
So why all Mike's convoluted stories and lies surrounding the Sphere book? One of his favourite words is "Simple", but he sure made things hard for himself this time, didn't he? And where is his detailed account of how he first came to be involved in the forgery, his friendship with Devereux, Kane, the Johnsons et al?
A couple more questions if I may be so bold - I presume you would have asked Sphere Books about the defective 1986 volume. What information did you get from them regarding the number of defective copies they may have produced, and what their policy was in the late 1980s/early 1990s for dealing with, or disposing of, substandard merchandise? For instance, did you show them the one claimed to be Mike's own copy, for their advice and comment? If there was a whole batch of books with such a defect, could one have found its way into a library?
You see, I'm trying to establish if you asked the sort of questions I'm sure Shirley would have done, had she not been deprived the opportunity, by Mike giving the Sphere book to Alan Gray in December 1994 'for safe keeping'. It does seem to me, even though you say 'Mike's' volume can be inspected whenever you are in London, that this crucial evidence was deliberately withheld from the legitimate diary investigation team six years ago, when enquiries would have had a better chance of being made, followed up and resolved.
Thanks again for taking time out from your busy schedule to help with my enquiries.
Love,
Caz
PS Barry, I know exactly who I am, thanks. I have to have about 16 Bacardis before I look in the mirror and ask, "Who the hell is that gorgeous specimen of womanhood staring at?" 
And I would love to meet Melvin face to face, but if he as tall as he looks on tv, it would be more like face to kneecap.... |
Author: Barry Street
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 07:13 am | | The AFI test was meticulously conducted and was made in sterile conditions with no margin allowed for the possibility of contamination. So, if anyone is suggesting that the ink sample tested was actually contaminated then they must be suggesting that this was done deliberately to the test control samples (taken from the diary page) that were tested. Chloroacetamide is a synthetic compound (i.e. manufactured) which does not occur naturally. Therefore, it is simple to see that any contamination of such a minute sample must have been caused deliberately and by design, unless the chemical was part of the make-up of the ink used, i.e. as a preservative, which use of chloroacetamide has only ever been made in modern times.
We see from this that, unless Mr. Begg is suggesting that someone deliberately introduced the chemical to the ink sample tested, the fact that the sample tested did contain the chemical must mean that it was part of the ink's formula. To suggest that this rare chemical 'got into the ink' in an accidental way would involve odds of millions to one. Like other pro-diary arguments (and there have been dozens of them) this one relies on suggested alternative scenarios the likelihood of which having happened are astronomically low.
There is no need to reconsider references to CAM as she had not done her homework sufficiently before rushing into print. Had she done so she may not have made some of the past gaffes she obviously has. Yet she still has the nerve to address her posts to Mr. Harris in a disbelieving and sneering manner. I may not be a published author but I don't pester those who are with dozens of trite questions which that author has already addressed in the past. Indeed it must be very wearying for him to have to keep repeating himself. Mr Harris himself is the only person who is in a position to answer the allegation that he has made unjust criticism of other authors and that is a dispute I would not wish to enter into. I suggest that you take that up with him Mr. Begg. What I would say is what business is that of CAM? Surely it is up to those allegedly slurred to make those enquiries, or are we saying that CAM is a mouthpiece for someone else?
The 'Eight Little Whores' arguments are so specious that they really are not worth continuing any further. There is ample to condemn the diary as a modern forgery besides this rhyme. I believe that you have admitted yourself, now, Mr. Begg that it is a modern forgery? Therefore, arguments about the 'Eight Little Whores' rhyme are simply academic and an unnecessary diversion (or smokescreen if it suits you).
Finally it is interesting to note that some seem to revel in these convoluted arguments, even those who do not understand what they are talking about. The diary is a dishonest fraud and something that I would not wish to be seen supporting. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 08:44 am | | I HAVE BEEN ASKED WHAT WAS ON PAGE ONE OF MY LETTER TO ROD GREEN SO HERE IS THAT PAGE:
4 SEPT 1997
Dear Rod Green,
As promised in my last letter, here are further details of points of misrepresentation found in Paul Feldman's book.
On page 340, he deals with journalist Frank Spiering's claim to have discovered a copy of Sir William Gull's notes (on the murders) in the library of the New York Academy of Medicine. He dismisses my statement that Spiering invented this find, by quoting an index card reference to a book of Gull's writings seen by Spiering. He concludes "Frank Spiering had not perpetrated a hoax after all" In other words I have maligned a living writer.
But I have not maligned Mr Spiering. That man was never able to produce a photocopy of any of the pages of the notebook he claimed to have seen. And the Library itself was never able to find a single trace of anything resembling these notes, which were said to be "bound in an ancient portfolio". Indeed in 1986 their Librarian confirmed that all their research material was catalogued and no such portfolio existed. That librarian then wrote to me on 20 November 1986 and I reproduced his letter in my 'Bloody Truth' of 1987. I enclose a photocopy of the relevant page. A similar letter was sent to Don Rumbelow, who reproduced it, as well, in his 1987 revision.
The index reference now being quoted by Feldman simply mentions a unexeptional book found in many libraries. Gull's notebook is not "now missing'", as Feldman claims, it never existed. But if Feldman wants to believe Spiering, why doesn't he tell his readers that Spiering claimed that this portfolio included the "...confession of...the Duke of Clarence. They detail the Prince's account of the sordid murders he committed in Whitechapel and his motivation for these murders."?
On page 94 Feldman describes a so-called analysis made for him by Martin Fido. It makes strange reading. If it is true it brands Fido as hypocritical, unreliable and dishonest. In conversations with me, and by letter, Fido has applauded my views on the Diary as shown in Appendices 7-10 of my "True Face". Furthermore, in his review of my book in 'Real Crime Book Digest' he said this: "...some useful appendices include a fine debunking job on the forged 'Diary of Jack the Ripper'..." But Feldman has him attacking these same appendices and quotes him as saying "His [Harris'] further assertion that the diary could have been 'concocted by drawing on three books at the most' cannot be substantiated..." |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 09:18 am | | Dear Mr. Street,
Since you began posting here on a regular basis in September, I've been reading your prose with some amusement, and aside from badgering Caroline Anne Morris; I am unable to figure out what your function in life is.
The Casebook is a discussion forum, at times, you seem acquainted with the concept, but for some reason, you are uncomfortable with unpublished contributors asking questions, or offering opinions. You're also focusing most of your anxiety on Ms. Morris; does this mean you have a problem with strong, intelligent women, or you just don't like Ms. Morris. Furthermore, in the course of your irritation, you are engaging in the same sneering that you are accusing Ms. Morris of using on Mr. Harris. In her case, it is less apparent then it is in yours. Your style is familiar. Have you posted here before under a different name?
I suggest you mind your manners Mr. Street.
Very truly yours
Joseph Triola Jr. |
Author: Barry Street
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 09:36 am | | Mr. Harris is a respected author who has been attacked from the very day he took a stand against the hoax diary. Why was he attacked? It has been suggested that all those supporting and promoting the diary were making, or stood to make, cash out of it. They could stand to lose a lot if the dodgy diary was discredited before it was foisted upon an unsuspecting world. However, such is the perversity of the nature of these things that the more controversy and criticism the diary received, so the publicity increased in due proportion. And we all know that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Only no publicity is bad publicity.
It is noticeable, also, that all those who attacked Mr. Harris were, in one way or another, supporters of the diary. Did Messrs Rumbelow, Sugden, Evans, Beadle, Tully, Paley, Warren etc. attack or denigrate Mr. Harris? No they did not. It was only supporters of the hoax diary who did this and still do.
Some of the well-known names who have attacked Mr. Harris seem to attract 'groupie'-like individuals on these boards who will not tolerate Mr. Harris responding to the attacks on him. What an odd situation.
Mr. Begg is a respected and respectable author and it is sad to see him and Mr. Harris disputing on these boards over something that they both agree is a hoax!
I suspect that some of the more sensible and perspicacious readers of these boards support Mr. Harris but do not wish to become embroiled in arguments with the 'groupies.' They probably view this debate (if they even read it) with disdain.
Before any of the smart alecs reading this message say it, yes, you can call me a Mr. Harris groupie - for I am standing up in support of him when he really does deserve it. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 10:13 am | | What's up Barry?
Are my questions beginning to worry you so much that Melvin may not have all the answers, that you think he needs your support (is that moral, factual or surgical?), by putting up welcome diversions from the topics in hand and waffling on about generalities?
I'm sure Melvin is most touched by your sycoph..psycho..sicko.. (oh bugger it) groupie-like attitude.
Have a great and stress-free weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 10:45 am | | Mr Street
I am not qualified to comment on the scientific analysis of the ink and I cannot say whether the AFI test was meticulously conducted in sterile conditions or not. Professor Roberts did observe that Analysis For Industry did not seem to have carried out a control test to see whether the chloroacetamide could be cointained in the paper attached to the ink sample. I also understand that when Shirley Harrison hired AFI to analyse the paper, Dr. Simpson produced a hole punch purchased that morning from W.H. Smith with which she intended taking the sample. So much for sterility! Mr. Kazlauciunas of Leeds University , in a letter dated 16 January 1995, also suggested that AFI's anti-contamination procedure could have left some chloroacetamide attached to the column (whatever that may mean) which then contaminated the sample. He was mistakenly thinking that an ultra-tiny amount of chloroacetamide had been found in the sample, but since we don't know how much chloroacetamide was found, we don't know whether his explanation or something like it could be correct or not. So perhaps AFI's tests weren't as meticulous or as sterile as you think.
But, as said, I am not qualified to comment with any authority. All I am trying to do is find my way through a mass of difficult data. I intended no criticism of AFI and I did I most certainly gave no grounds for your assumption that I was suggesting or implying deliberate contamination of the sample. Indeed, I wasn't suggesting anything at all. It was Professor Roberts of UMIST, who I assume is qualified to talk on the matter, who said that chloroacetamide was an old compound, extensively used in the 1880s (albeit not known to have been used in the manufacture of paper or ink). He said, 'Even if no references could be found to its use in paper in 1889, the fact that it existed well before that date would devalue the scientific evidence in support of the fact that the diaries were forged...The argument that it found its way into the ink or paper by some obscure route can never be completely discounted.' So, Mr. Street, you do not appear to be correct when you say that chloroacetamide was a 'rare chemical'. According to Professor Roberts, it was extensively used and I assume that it could have entered the ink in any number of ways.
The bottom line, as far as I am aware. is that we do not know what quantity of chloroacetamide was found in the sample and we do not know whether the quantity matched what would be expected if it had been used in the manufacture of the ink. Since we don't know, we can't safely draw any hard and fast conclusion. And all this actually accepts that there is chloroacetamide in the ink. Leeds University failed to find any.
As for your observations about "Eight Little Whores", on October 11 R.J. Palmer listed eight reasons why the 'diary' is a modern forgery. Heading the list was that the 'diary' rhymes are derived from the "Eight Little Whores" poem that makes its first known appearance in Donald McCormick's 1959 book. If, in fact, the 'diary' rhymes have no connection whatsoever with "Eight Little Whores then "Eight Little Whores" has no place in that list and has no place in any assessment of dating the 'diary'. In other words, people are basing their conclusion in part on a false piece of evidence. Surely you don't support that?
When Shirley Harrison, Caz or someone else says something, no matter how minor, that is wrong, numerous contributors to these boards unhesitatingly point out the error in no uncertain terms. But it seems that when they make a point that's correct, their argument is immediately dismissed as 'specious', 'not worth considering any further' and an 'academic and an unnecessary diversion'. Not very fair or balanced response is it? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 11:27 am | | Hi All,
Hi Barry,
I promise I've got my serious face on again now.
Paul got me thinking with his valid question about you appearing to be happy to support faulty reasoning.
I don't quite understand who you think you are supporting when you do this.
If I can push just that little bit further, and persuade Melvin to rethink any possible faulty reasoning, and come up with something so faultless, along the lines of our recent discussions, that it would make even the staunchest diary supporter gulp and say "It's a fair cop, guvnor", what is your interest in trying to stop me? I could understand it more if Shirley or Feldy were to warn me off, terrified that I will finally force Melvin to come up with the goods. But no, it has always been the modern hoax theorists, almost from the day I first posted on the casebook looking for answers, who have tried any way they can to dissuade me from asking awkward questions. Doesn't that tell you something? If I can help Melvin to help himself, and put an end to further debate on the subject, why do you want to stop me? Have you no faith at all in Melvin's proof?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 11:59 am | | Dear Mr. Street,
You seem to be at odds with the very nature of human discourse, which is unfortunate because you also seem to be an erudite man in pursuit of an honorable cause, i.e. defending someone you admire, and respect.
Authors, and other critics, have been arguing for or against one perspective or another since the Sophists learned to manipulate rhetoric. I am positive that Mr. Harris is not new to that venue, and through experience, has developed a much thicker skin then you give him credit for. You should also consider the fact that he is engaged in the same type of harsh dialog that you accuse his detractors of using on him. It is a good example of, "what goes around comes around", (Author unknown).
A simple solution to this problem would be for everyone to play nice, but that isn't going to happen to soon; it isn't Mr. Harris's style, which is more akin to Walter Winchell, then Dick Chaney, and why should Ms. Morris have sit back and absorb such punishment without replying in kind.
You also appear to be confused on one very important issue Mr. Street, and that is: Ms. Morris has said, time and again, that she is NOT a diary supporter. She is in fact just what she says she is, an interested party seeking the truth. Mr. Harris makes a statement; Ms. Morris wants to know what evidence the statement is based on. Actually, she is doing Mr. Harris a favor by having him substantiate his claims with supporting evidence. Future questioners will then have solid reference material, as opposed to conjecture and innuendo, to use when making up their own minds about the diary. Most "groupies" of the Whitechaple murders are well acquainted with the scanty, and unsubstantiated speculation of supposedly well informed sources contemporary to crimes (See identification of suspect at seaside retirement home), and appreciate the public debate on this latest chapter of the JtR mystery; that is everyone but you.
Rough Q&A comes with the territory Mr. Street, and from my experience, I don't think Mr. Harris is going to wilt under its pressure. So why don't you and I sit back, relax, have a Scotch and soda, and together, watch Ms. Morris, and Mr. Harris dance.
Best Regards
JMT |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 12:03 pm | | I'd like to join with Barry Street in supporting Melvin Harris. It should be mentioned that Melvin has a fine pedigree in the field of exposing hoaxes in all fields from the Angels of Mons to Lobsang Rampa and his research experience gained him credits on such shows as the Arthur C. Clarke mystery series. When I was doing research this year on the "Captain Kidd Charts" I called him for advice and was not surprised to hear that he had already done the same research for the Clarke show and knew exactly what I needed. This is a man who has the technical knowledge to understand and write on the forensic examination of the diary and to know exactly how the scratches on the back of the watch were made.
Peter |
Author: Ennui
Friday, 20 October 2000 - 03:53 pm | | Barry,
Harris is attacked because he insists on shoving his opinions down the throats of others and expecting us to treat this forced-fed bile as if it were manna.
Nuff said.
Anyway I would like to get back to the watch issue. In one of his posts Harris states that faking the aging of the watch and the particles would be a simple thing to do, requiring only different grades of buffing paper. Has anyone tried this? What would be the expense of having a deliberately hoaxed watch tested to see how it compares to the Maybrick watch? |
Author: R Court
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 11:31 am | | Hi all,
having returned after a long pause, I greet first of all all old friends and salute all new.
Just a quicky about the watch. As far as I know, and from the photos I have seen that appears to be the case, it is a Lady's model. James, on the other hand, has been photographed wearing a very large, heavy watch-chain.
The scenario:
James Maybrick, a sucessful ca. 50 year old highly esteemed Victorian cotton merchant and Gentleman walks around with a watch-chain as thick as your arm, on the end of which, hardly visable, a twee little Lady's tick-tock. Just the thing to impress contemporary Victorian Society
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 12:15 pm | | Hi Ennui,
Great idea about the watch.
I had a similar idea with the diary. One of the blank pages at the end of it could have been used (I know, it would have meant defacing it) to write passages using suitable modern inks, including Diamine. They could then have been tested at appropriate yearly intervals and compared with the results from the tests on the actual diary ink.
These sort of tests don't come cheap though, and I think one of the problems Shirley found was that she could have gone on paying for test after independent test, but if they all produced different, inconclusive, or hotly disputed results anyway, nothing was going to get resolved that way. It does seem amazing that no one has been able to confirm or deny, with no room for any doubt, that the diary ink is indeed Diamine. Perhaps as more money comes into the diary coffers (which seems inevitable until my tango with Mr. Harris bears fruit - thanks Joseph ;-)), it may eventually be thought worthwhile to pay for more tests.
Hi Peter,
Support for individuals because of past achievements is absolutely natural, honourable and all the rest of it. And I also support Melvin, believe it or not, in his search for the truth about the diary and watch. But however good he is at exposing hoaxes, with all due respect, he can only expose this one as recent if that's exactly what it is. If he specialises in hoax-busting, I do hope he would never set out to expose one before he was absolutely sure, for his own sake. But for me, it's not a case of willing my favourite person on to win some battle of wits. If and when Melvin succeeds in getting the reputable members of the diary/watch investigation (and however you may argue to the contrary, there are some!) to chuck their artefacts out the window into the polluted waters of history, I will congratulate him as heartily as anyone else for a job well done. I do disagree strongly though with the way Melvin, among others, accuses certain people of dishonesty, and of clinging cynically to an 'obvious' modern hoax simply for the commercial possibilities - I just can't accept that, having met some of them.
It will be extremely interesting to see how Albert Johnson reacts to questions relating to how the watch scratches were made. And Melvin will have the chance to assess if it was Albert (or A N Other) who had the means, motive, opportunity - and character - to make them.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 12:23 pm | | Hi Bob,
I didn't mean to ignore you. Great to see you posting again.
Yes, it does seem a strange choice of watch for whoever was able to produce those clever scratches. Another enigma for those of us hoping that time will eventually (or at least before I pop my clogs) reveal all.
Lots of love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 21 October 2000 - 06:26 pm | | RETHINKS IN ORDER!
I see that Caz thinks she is asking "awkward questions". She is not. She is mainly asking questions that have already been answered, or ones that are misconceived or misdirected. For example, if she wants answers to her Sphere Books questions then she should ring the Liverpool Central Library and ask them to examine the copy they hold. Then she should ask for the librarian who must have read the essay on George Herbert prior to Mike's alleged visit. Remember, only two books are involved: Mike's and that library copy. And note that Anne Barrett has never disputed the fact that the book was in their home prior to the surfacing of the Diary.
As for Paul Begg, he has chosen to ignore the detailed letter I sent to the A to Z people on the ink question. Some of the mistaken points he is still making were answered in Feb 1997! And out of his ignorance he sneers at Dr Simpson because she used a hole punch bought from W.H. Smith. "So much for sterility!" jibes Begg, revealing that he has absolutely no understanding of the techniques used by Dr Simpson and other skilled analysts.
Dr Simpson was not dealing with microbes or viruses, but with CHEMICAL compounds and mixtures. The 'sterility' involved in her tests is more properly designated as 'hyper-clean, and contamination free'. In short, her testing apparatus is free from any tainting chemical traces. And, after each substance is tested, the apparatus is re-cleaned then checked. In the case of her famous chloroacetamide test, her tubing was first checked with an injection of the solvent to be used. In this case it was acetone: a reading was taken. After each test and re-cleaning pure acetone was injected once more, and a reading taken. This check will disclose at once if any traces of the tested substance remain in the lengthy tubing. None did. Thus no contamination was possible in her final, important test.
I initially described the Leeds tests as "fatally flawed" and this was seized on by Begg as an example of abuse. But later data showed me that the tests were very odd ones indeed, since they failed to find the sodium that Dr Eastaugh found in every test! I was not alone in raising an eyebrow at the Leeds events. Chemists who read the reports were quite scathing. More to the point Diamine's chemist, Alec Voller, wrote this: "The Leeds report is profoundly disturbing. That any possibility of cross contamination should have been allowed to arise in Gas Chromatography is unforgivable, but even worse, calibration of the instrument appears to have been very cursory and its ability to detect tiny traces of chloroacetamide assumed rather than properly established. For reasons which I will expand upon later, it is questionable whether the SEM/EDX examination which forms the central core of this report should have been performed at all. This is not necessarily to say that the results obtained at Leeds are wrong but I feel that a distinct question mark hangs over them. By contrast with the above, the report by Analysis for Industry presents us with almost a model picture of how an analysis should be conducted and reported."
To his sneer at Dr Simpson, Begg adds a foolish bit about Mr Kazlauciunas and ends up in a right muddle. This issue has already been dealt with in detail on Internet. Mr K was simply wrong and his error is plain to see once you understand the testing regime described by Dr Simpson and recorded by me on screen. Equally, Begg is foolish to refer to Dr Roberts in the way he does, since I dealt with Dr Roberts views in that letter to the A to Z Three, dated 20th Feb 1997. This is what I wrote:-
"You quote Prof John Roberts criticism of AFI for not having run a control test on the paper. But before sending those words to your publishers did you ever consider picking up the phone and explaining to the Prof that he was misguided? Did you explain to him that the lab had to work with a tiny sample which allowed only one test; that no-one connected with the Diary was, at that time, prepared to test or allow others to test; that as a result it was impossible to run tests on paper samples? Of course you didn't, yet you are the people who make use of the terms 'responsible' and 'honourable' in your pages. The only responsible and honourable course for you to have taken was to have enlightened Prof Roberts, but you didn't take that course.
I have now spoken to Prof Roberts and he confirms that he was never told by Harrison that AFI had no access to the Diary and thus could not run tests on plain paper. He agrees that this should have been spelled out to him. He also agrees that chloroacetamide, though around for many years, was not a commercial proposition until its manufacture after World War 2. He further states that he advised an exact repetition of the AFI tests as a sound scientific step and a fair one."
To this let me add that until a sound commercial production process was devised this chemical was far too expensive to be used in something as cheap as a bottle of ink.
Though admitting that he doesn't know what he is talking about Begg rambles on about the quantity of chloroacetamide found by AFI. Yet this very point was dealt with by me years ago. The amount never mattered since the test was for the presence of the synthetic substance, and no more. If Begg still fails to understand this then let him seek out a friendly, patient and highly qualified chemist to explain.
Finally, the paper punch jibe must have originated with Mrs Harrison and shows her to be a mean-minded and empty character. But then we have known all along that she was out of her depth and not to be trusted with any matter involving the sound assessment of evidence. |
Author: Barry Street
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 05:28 am | | First I would like to thank Mr. Triola for what I think is a kind and well-intentioned post which actually stopped me responding hastily to the preceding posts. He made some very valid points and certainly made me think that it is indeed best to sit back and watch the others 'dance.'
Mr. Harris then responded to his critics with an excellent post which, if read carefully, leaves some serious questions to be answered by his detractors. He shows that in all probability CAM has been misled and does not really understand some of the essential points involved.
I admire Mr. Begg and think that he is a gifted writer. I am therefore saddened to see that he has responded to my previous post with misleading statements about, especially, the chloroacetamide tests that were conducted. He even quotes Professor Roberts whose comments were made before that gentleman had been correctly apprised of the true circumstances of the tests and were therefore not strictly relevant. What is more worrying is that all these counter points have been passed to Mr. Begg in the past yet he still quotes them again.
I am afraid I am unable to argue with such reasoning and semantics and I can see that there is no circumstance under which CAM would concede anything at all to me.
Mr. Triola's advice is very sound and sensible, I am heeding his words and withdrawing entirely from this debate - for good. Thanks also to Mr. Birchwood for his support. |
Author: R Court
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 05:51 am | | Hi Caz,
No offence taken at all. The watch bit is just a tiny little bit of the whole. If it really is a Ladies model, however, who is trying to kid who?
Melvin, if you don't know that any proper investigative chemical tests, especially if you are looking only for the presence (trace) of a substance requires outmost STERILE conditions in the test module (Sterile does not only mean medically sterile) then your attacks on certain people are not as well-informed as you think.
If you allow only the slightest risk of contamination, be it chemical, biological or whatever in your tests, you are not serious. For those who understand, why distilled instead of de-ionised? To pooh-pooh the punch story for example is to run the danger of leaving yourself wide open to the sort of critic you seem to like handing out.
You talk of 'pure acetone' and ramble on yourself about reports of 'model tests'. If the object module has been in contact e.g. with acetone, (what is chemically meant by 'pure'?)it will show residue. If this residual contanimation level can be detected by your equipment or not, it will tend to affect your tests. I do not suggest that AFI did not test correctly, but your arguments are not right on that score. How did AFI ensure that all residues were removed, or did they rely on then not affecting the tests? (If the Leeds reports are only half-true, my hair stands on end too.)
Before you start on me, I am known as anti-diaryist. Many of your statements seem to be fully correct and well-informed and I admit to having refuted the diary from the first I heard of it almost entirely because of your works. Pity that there is no possibility of me getting a sample of this ink. Using our LIF-rebound Spectrographic methods can allow us to approach isotope levels of element detection. Even if chloroacetamide is trace-present however, what will that mean compared to the other evidence that you have got together? I get the feeling that negative over-kill is being practiced here.
Best regards,
Bob Court |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 08:35 am | | Further to Bob's excellent post, I was wondering whether there's any possibility of getting some of the reports and chromatographs posted up on Stephen's site. We seem to be getting a number of arguments about whether the tests have been correctly conducted, etc. As far as I'm concerned I would think it would be extremely helpful to see the results so that I (and other readers) could put these arguments in perspective. From the discourse which has gone on over the last week there are elements of these scientific tests which would give me cause for concern (purely, I must add, on what has been said on these boards), especially considering the minute traces we are talking about. By having some reports/graphs/spectra on the website we can at least begin to attack this problem in an objective (and informed)manner.
Dela |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 12:16 pm | | Hello Mr. Street,
Thank you for your kind words. As you can see by his response, Mr. Harris is as tough as nails, and can easily deal with any question, or questioner, on this subject.
What is more important then the watch issue, at least in my opinion, is the validity of the Diary itself. Mr. Birchwood made a good point in his position statement, i.e. if we do not contest the validity of the Diary openly, prior to the release of a movie, the general public may conclude that the silence of Ripperology groups, such as the Casebook, is a tacit sanction of its content.
I suggest we discuss the possibility that a "Maybrick" movie, may produce a public feeling of closure on the subject of JtR, and if and when a genuine solution is found, it will be met with skepticism and rejected, because the public perception is that the case has already been solved, and the Diary has proved that James Maybrick was Jack.
It should also be made clear, that we are not condemning Ms. Harrison; she is simply the messenger who brought us the potential solution. She wasn't a Ripper enthusiast to begin with, and from that prospective, we can understand that her intensions were an honest effort, directed at informing the public.
Most importantly, we need a consensus on the Maybrick Diary, and from that consensus, we should formulate a Casebook policy aimed at informing public opinion. In this regard, Mr. Birchwood is correct; the Casebook is a Ripperology forum, and the obligation to accept or reject the story of the Maybrick Diary rests with Ripperology.
Best regards
Joseph |
Author: Feebles
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 04:53 pm | | | It seems to me that the diary has been so thoroughly demolished-it has gotten to a question of when and how, not if, it was forged-that the believers are now relying on something more like faith than reason for support. The diary will remain a popular superstition that will not be affected by further demonstrations of its falsity, like horoscopes. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 22 October 2000 - 05:09 pm | | ONCE MORE UNTO THE THINK-TANK DEAR FRIENDS!
Since R Court has benefited from my postings in the past he will not be offended if I say that he can further benefit if he now re-reads my post and makes full allowance for the fact that it was written to enlighten as many people as possible. It was not meant to meet the exacting standards that analytical chemists might demand. On re-reading he will find that his words: "You...ramble on yourself about reports of 'model tests'" are unjustified. The person who wrote about AFI's report as a 'model' was Diamine's chemist Alec Voller. And when I spoke of 'pure acetone' I was clearly indicating the high standard of purity that analytical labs look for. As Mr Court must know, firms like Aldrich offer 13 different qualities of the solvent.
But this dispute is about a cheap and slimy sneer generated by Mrs Harrison and repeated toady-fashion by Paul Begg. An event in London is being used to smear laboratory standards in Thorpe-le-Soken. In brief Mrs Harrison asked Dr Simpson to test a sample of the Diary paper for the presence of chloroacetamide. But Mrs Harrison could not afford the time to travel out to the labs at Thorpe-le-Soken. Dr Simpson then met her in London to take a paper sample. The sample she took came from pages that had been pawed over by innumerable hands, thus she was not dealing with a sterile sample from the start. Her stainless steel punch would have added nothing of importance to that sample!
Back in 1994, in her Thorpe-le-Soken labs, Dr Simpson used gas-liquid chromatography to analyse a series of solutions of chloroacetamide in acetone. (These are detailed in her report) She finally found that "it was possible to identify a peak on the chromatograms produced as low as 1.45 nanograms injected into the chromatograph." After this finding the ink extracted by acetone was tested.
Now for the layman, as well as Mr Court, let me clarify the process used to insure against contamination. First of all, using ultra-clean apparatus, a reading is taken to register the profile of the solvent to be used. The acetone in question will produce a peak on a graph at a given point. If the same conditions are duplicated at every test, then the acetone will produce a similar peak at the same place on every occasion.
Following cleaning, the first of the standard solutions of chloroacetamide in acetone is tested. A new peak is observed in a new place; this is the signature of the synthetic compound. More cleaning, then as Dr Simpson has testified:- "There was no question of contamination, as between each determination, 'blank' determinations of the solvent were run; a different detector was used, and calibrations were performed at the nanogram level."
In other words the acetone 'blanks' run after each chloroacetamide test registered as acetone and nothing else. Had any chloroacetamide been left behind in the tubing then its peak would have shown at once since the equipment could register amounts at the nanogram level. QED
Mr Court and Mr Delahunty should note that I sent copies of every chromatograph involved plus documents from the Leeds test and Dr Eastaugh's test to Stephen Ryder for display on screen. Whether they were displayed or not I can't say, since I don't have access to the Net, but Ryder will confirm this statement.
MORE ON THAT WATCH SOON! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 07:23 am | | It should be pointed out that the documentary evidence to which Mr. Harris refers can be viewed on the Casebook as a number of appendices to his article "A Fact-file for the Perplexed", reachable from the Dissertations page.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 08:45 am | | Cheers Guy.
I just took a look because, although I've read all Melvin's articles, I couldn't remember whether I'd seen those particular appendices.
Hi Dela,
It’s good to see you again. Have you been following all the latest developments? We may be going over old ground to some extent, but I do think it's worth getting the facts re-established, with as much accuracy as possible this time, even if only to stop me being misled by anyone any more, and possibly misleading others in the process. Whatever anyone thinks to the contrary, I really am only interested in the truth behind the diary and watch. I have no interest, 'vested’ or otherwise, in them being old fakes if that's not what they are.
Hi Melvin,
You quoted Alec Voller, Diamine's chemist, thus: "...the report by Analysis for Industry presents us with almost a model picture of how an analysis should be conducted and reported." Do you know what conclusions Voller drew from AFI's meticulous testing and results? (I am no scientist, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt the high standards of AFI's work.) For example, did Voller ever alter his opinion that the diary ink is not Diamine? And, more importantly, did he concede that the ink must be modern, because AFI's remit to test for chloroacetamide was successful? While accepting that Voller was qualified to speak with authority on AFI’s model picture of analysis and reporting, do you know how qualified he was to recognise his own make of ink, or other modern manuscript ink masquerading as old? And what was his take on the possible effects of 'innumerable pawing' hands on the diary before testing? Of course the sample would not be sterile from the start, and I appreciate that it could only be analysed in the state it reached the lab. And if Voller, AFI et al have already confirmed that there can be no potential problems with modern chemicals from unclean hands etc (or hole punches, which may or may not have come into previous direct contact with printed materials, for example), then it looks like pretty conclusive evidence to me.
Melvin, I am delighted that none of my questions will prove too “awkward” for you to answer. I was misled into this view from the start, by various pseudonymous, anonymous and named ‘occasional’ posters to the diary board, whose main aim in life appeared to be to sabotage any dialogue, regardless of its usefulness or otherwise to the readership. Most fair-minded people can see that this sort of action cuts both ways. These posters (and I think their numbers were very small) evidently believed your theory needed their help to make it fly. And this misled me into thinking there might be some method in their madness. I apologise.
I am looking forward to hearing more about that watch. In the meantime, I am looking again at the exact order of events regarding the Crashaw quote, because I think it’s probably the most powerful argument of all for a modern hoax. And if you have already proved that the naturally defective Sphere book was in Mike’s home at the same time as the diary, ie before 1992, then it all could and should have been over six years ago, on 6th December 1994 to be precise! Watch this space!
Love,
Caz |
Author: R Court
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 10:32 am | | Hi Melvin,
as you imply yourself, not only you, but I, explained in a simplified fashion for those not readily aquainted with material investigation. Therefore I did not go deeply into the matter either. I took it for granted that a profi firm like AFI would use a control method as you described, anything else would have been absurd.
If, as you say, the sample was not available in a chemical sterile (not 'clean', that is another matter) condition then it depends on what you are looking for as to whether it can be used at all. Frankly if AFI were ordered just to 'look for chloroacetemid' (trace) then the whole was a waste of time anyway.
Naturally they should have investigated;
i) Is the target substance present in the sample?
if no, goodbye.
if yes;
ii) Are sufficient quantities of the target substance, it's deratives and/or residues present to indicate that it was present as intentional additive in sufficient amounts to do some task (in this case to 'preserve') or not.
if yes, for this case the ink will be very probably of recent origin. Goodby.
if no;
iii) If it is not indicated as additive, then it is very probably present as contaminant. Now the fun begins, however...
While not wishing to disparage AFI (or anyone else for that matter), to try to carry out trace tests ( I assume that the demand was, as you reported, to find if the stuff was there at all) on some dog-eared piece of material that has apparantly been all over the place is simply a waste of time, both with regard to the tests and any discussion about what the results might mean. At any time, foreign substances of any description whatsoever could have been transposed and make any sort of trace investigation in most cases meaningless.
To come back to the acetone story, it is not sufficient to simply flush test modules with some solvent, acetone or not, then take control probes. Depending on the method used, not only knowlege over the reaction between the solvent, it's deratives and products with the sample but also reaction of deratives of the sample products with the solvent etc. are required. This is certainly true when you are at trace level. If any of the above sample/solvent products fingerprint a peak/peaks anywhere within the area of the material elements to be searched for, you can only go further by a very long (and very expensive) chemical elimination process, not possible under the conditions that AFI would have had.
So, I assume that AFI understood the actual problem and tested accordingly. Was enough chloroacetimde and it's products present to indicate an intentional additive or not enough, thus indicating contamination? Traces of it are not useful and indicate at best that it has come into contact at some time or another with some contanimant. Here comes e.g. your punch bit.
The advantage with the LIF-spectrography process I referred to, incidently, is that it can excite samples in nm. (nanometer) layers from the subject matter. Thus not only can the chemical composition be found, more important for trace work is that externally transposed contaminants can be detected, their rate and depth of infusion indicating how much of what, and even in some cases when. This is valid even for material properties much thinner than an ink trace would be.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 10:41 am | | Let me make it very clear that I regard Melvin Harris very highly as an excellent and distinguished researcher who has made many welcome and very valuable contributions to the study of the Jack the Ripper mystery (and other subjects) and that I consider his books, most particularly Jack the Ripper: The Bloody Truth to be required reading.
This said, he is also extremely rude and derogatory about those he perceives as challenging his ideas and conclusions. This rudeness is simply illustrated by his statement that I have ‘chosen to ignore’ a letter he sent to my colleagues and I. I don’t ignore material and Harris's statement is below the belt, especially as he can't prove it. I don’t recall the letter of which he speaks. It may be that I never saw it. If I did see it, I have forgotten it, perhaps unsurprisingly given what I have been through in the last couple of years. But Harris is exceedingly frugal when allowing such alternative explanations into his reasoning. Instead he picks a gutter-level explanation that is seriously demeaning to me and which, I suppose, he regards as ennobling to him.
But be this as it may.
Harris, of course, is totally correct in every respect when he says that I have absolutely no understanding of the techniques used by Dr. Simpson. I am therefore grateful to Harris for making this clear for those who he apparently thinks my own words “I am not qualified to comment on the scientific analysis of the ink and I cannot say whether the AFI test was meticulously conducted in sterile conditions or not” were too subtle. May I just add for clarification that I was not being critical of
Dr. Simpson, but rather listing some views alternative to Barry Street's.
On which note, whilst I am happy to freely acknowledge my profound ignorance about every aspect of Dr. Simpson’s methods and methodology, and I hope I am not doing Shirley Harrison a disservice when I say that I suspect that her ignorance on the subject is as great as my own, I would be surprised if many equally uninformed lay people would not likewise have expected every effort to be made to remove any possibility of contamination and would in their ignorance also express surprise at an attempt to take a paper sample with a hole punch bought that morning from a newsagent. Why, I wonder, does Harris interpret this as so reprehensible a sin that it reveals Shirley Harrison as a ‘mean minded and empty character’?
I did, of course, grasp the fact that the purpose of the AFI test was to find trace of a synthetic substance. Harris, however, says that ‘the amount never mattered since the test was for the presence of the synthetic substance.’ In so saying, though, Harris sweepingly ignores the point being made. As I understand it the test was conducted to see if the ink sample contained chloroacetamide, a preservative used in recent years by the Liverpool-based ink manufacturer Diamine, apparently the only company ever to have so used it. The presence of the chemical was thus seen as showing that Diamine was the ink used (as first suggested to a journalist by an ink seller) and thus providing a recent date for the composition of the document. The problem, though, is that chloroacetamide was also extensively used during the 1880s and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the ‘diary’ ink could have become contaminated at that time or any time thereafter. Caroline Morris, although using the wrong figures, was basically arguing that it should have been possible to tell from the quanity of chloroacetamide in the sample whether it was a manufacturing ingredient or a contaminant. If Caroline is correct then contrary to what Harris has tried to say, quantity did and does matter. The bottom line, though, appears to be that because we don't know the quantity of chloroacetamide found, the AFI test sadly remains inconclusive. I look forward to Harris's observations on this seemingly important point.
In recent posts Harris has twice dismissively referred to me in one way or another as seizing upon ‘fatally flawed’ as abusive. I don’t want to get into this and resisted the temptation when he first referred to it in a reply to Shirley Harrison, but I feel that an explanation is warranted. Very simply, the respected Wolfson Laboratory at Leeds University tested a ‘diary’ ink sample on behalf of Shirley Harrison and failed to find chloroacetamide. Harris called the Leeds tests “fatally flawed”. True or not, Harris’s remarks were found offensive by Mr. Kazlauciunas of the Wolfson Laboratory. This is clear from his reply (published on pg.202 of Paul Feldman’s book), in which he described Harris as a ‘muddled gentleman’ and some of his comments as ‘inept ramblings’, and in which he strongly defended his results, his staff and the reputation of his laboratory. Harris’s language was neither temperate, diplomatic or prudent. It was language which gave Mr Kazlauciunas no easy way admitting an error, no way of reviewing his tests, no way of liasing with Dr. Simpson at AFI to determine what the error was, how it could have been made and who made it. But Harris was typically ‘in your face’ confrontational and he achieved nothing at all except bitterness, debate and continuing controversy. He had resolution within his grasp, yet threw it away for… well, who knows for what reason. Personal vanity perhaps?
Now, maybe I am being a little harsh in holding Melvin Harris responsible for this, but I think anyone can see why my criticism of him for giving offence with the words “fatally flawed” is both demonstrable and justified. But it isn’t a singular occurrence. I think is well-known that Paul Feldman wrote his book Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter as much to prove Harris wrong as to prove himself correct. Indeed, Feldman acknowledges this in the hardback edition, thanking ‘Melvin Harris, who gave me the reason to write.’ That Harris caused to be written the book against which he has railed and raged for two or three years is a terrible irony that few will fail to appreciate. And so it has continued. Whatever one may think about the article in History Today, describing it as ‘an affront to the basic tenets of scholarship’ were not words likely to encourage Professor Rubinstein to reconsider his arguments and revise his conclusions. They were an attack on Prof. Rubinstein’s ability, a threat to his reputation, damaging to his status within the academic fraternity and maybe even an endangerment to his employment. They were not words that left any avenue for dignified withdrawal. They left Professor Rubinstein with no choice but to defend himself. And so, again, nothing is resolved.
So, yes, I do hold Melvin Harris responsible for a lot of the ill-feeling generated around the ‘diary’ and I think his recent posts and the above examples clearly demonstrate why. And it is amazing how quickly he and his supporters degenerate into making such personal remarks. Even Barry Street, who seems not to appreciate that Caroline Morris has as much right to ask questions of Melvin Harris as anyone else and that Melvin Harris is obliged more than anyone else to answer them. So, maybe all the personal stuff could be set aside and attention paid to the questions being asked. For kickers, maybe Harris would like to answer some of Caroline’s questions, of which I recall three in particular:
(a) does not knowing the quantity of chloroacetamide in the ink sample leave open the possibility, no matter how remote, that it was not an ingredient in the manufacture of the ink and therefore does not in fact provide the conclusive evidence of date of composition that some people believe?
(b) is it true that the only reason for claiming that the ‘diary’ rhymes are based on “Eight Little Whores” is that Paul Feldman said so and that if Paul Feldman was wrong, as he is said to have been wrong on so many things, then “Eight Little Whores” is irrelevant?
(c) What evidence does Melvin Harris have that Paul Feldman didn’t contact Donald McCormick in 1993?
I also await with interest his answer to when the Sphere book was in Mike's house, to his answers to the questions posed about Alec Voller, and, if ever he has the inclination, to the questions asked about the journalists who discovered that Mike and Anne were the placers. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 11:10 am | | Bob
As said, I am indebted to you for indicating that my ignorance wasn't as profound as I thought. Are you saying in your post to Melvin that LIF-spectrography would resolve the problem? Even at this late date? If so, what would it cost?
Thanks
PAul |
Author: R Court
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 11:36 am | | Hi Paul,
About LIF-Spectrography;
Unfortunantly I don't think it would solve this particular problem, although tests could be made. The reason is as I posted above, that such samples as may be available are evidently not suitable due to almost endless possibilties of contaminant invasion. One or a small number of contaminants can be isolated, a multifarious magnitude of the devil knows what can not.
However, I will e-mail you privately to explain the situation and what possibilities are there. Something could, maybe, be done. Other, interested, parties can contact me privately too, if they wish. Please not all at once.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: R Court
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 12:29 pm | | Hi Dela!
Sorry, in the cut-and-thrust I didn't greet you. Good to hear from you again and keep your posts comming,
best regards
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 09:13 am | | Hi All,
So, if all AFI were ever paid to do was test the sample, in the condition they received it, for the presence of chloroacetamide, they were under no professional obligation to their client to report on the possible explanations or implications of finding it. The client was quite rightly and properly left to draw his own conclusions - another job well done for AFI, and another case of Melvin's word being accepted that the test showed the ink must be Diamine and therefore modern. In fact, isn't this slightly misleading, if AFI were never asked to comment on Melvin's own conclusions?
But the most pressing question I have for Melvin right now (while Bob and Paul discuss further testing possibilities) is:
What date did Mike lodge the Sphere book (with the Crashaw quote) with his solicitor?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 09:34 am | | Hi Bob, Caroline and everyone else.
I've not posted for a while but be assured I have kept abreast of recent arguments on the Casebook and will try and make more time in future to make some contributions. The recent debate has brought out the scientist in me (which has been rather dormant since my university days as I pursue other paths). I'm not taking sides but it would be best if both sides had their cards on the table in full view for everyone to see.
Anyway, since I'm half a world away and not familiar with northern hemisphere inks(actually I wouldn't normally take any interest in ink unless it stopped coming out of the pen I was using)could someone please tell the ignorant ones on this board what the concentration of chloroacetamide in Diamine ink is. I would imagine (given that it is a slightly toxic substance) that it's concentration isn't very high. When you are taking a small amount of dried ink (possibly equivalent to a few microlitres)and extracting it from the paper into solution there isn't going to be much chloroacetamide there (Diamine ink or not).
For any test there's a starting point. I think in layperson's terms this is it. The starting point determines the methods of analysis which seems to be the centre of this whole argument - problem is we don't have all the facts in front of us yet (at least I presently don't). I'm hoping someone can oblige.
Dela |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 09:48 am | | Hi Caz,
I did assume that AFI would have understood the reason for the tests, and have acted accordingly. This assumes that they were not rudely ordered to do something and nothing else, which I don't suppose. The bit about 'washing with acetone' ( a solvent) does tend to imply that they were not going to any special level of detection (so-called 'trace' level) and that they looked for an at least easily measureable presence of the stuff.
...(or that they are no 'profis' which I don't believe at all!)
The interpretation of the findings is a whole new kettle of fish. Melvin Harris and others (including me) can interpret as they are inclined to, that doesn't make it right or wrong. Simply, if chloroacetimide is present in enough quantities to suggest it is an additive, then the ink may well be Diamine. And now...?
If not, how much, why, and what does it mean? I say, as I have always said, that I consider the diary a fake. I can easily be wrong, although the whole.. if you will pardon me.. affair does tend to indicate in this direction.
I do have the feeling that even a conclusive proof of the substance in the ink would not do much to credit/miscredit the diary, but an attempt to reach this stage would, I think, be useful.
Love,
Bob
XXXXXX |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 10:03 am | | Hi Dela,
Our mails crossed. I don't know the concentration that Diamine had as additive, but it can be no problem to find out, certainly some other posters will know. I agree with you that it will not have been much.
We look, however, for a procent presence of the substance to be traced, so the actual amount of test material is not important, so long as enough is there to test it at all. Nowadays amounts in nanogram (1/1000000000) or even picrogram (another three noughts) can be detected under certain conditions and we are working on getting to the femtiogram (sigh..yet another three noughts) if some clever lab-people somewhere haven't already beaten us to it.
Frankly, as Caz has already intimated, we can test for the presence of a substance in %, even indicate in some cases how the substance came to be there, but the interpretation is a whole new matter.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 11:59 am | | Hi All,
On page 366 of Shirley's updated paperback, the formula of Diamine ink pre 1992 is given as follows (assuming of course that the information is correct):
Gallic Acid 0.84%
Tannic Acid 0.42%
Anhydrous sulphate 1.26%
Nigrosine 0.42%
Dextrine 1.88%
Oxalic Acid 0.52%
Chloroacetamide 0.26%
Artilene Black 2.32% (a proprietary pigment dispersion, 40% Carbon Black, 60% other constituents which form no part of the dry ink residue, and are therefore not listed)
Water 92.08%
Meanwhile, I do hope Melvin has managed to find that date for me - it is rather important in establishing when Mike first proved he knew where the Crashaw quote could be found. In fact, it could bind Mike and modern forgery together with the knot of knots, which there's no untying. So what are we waiting for?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 07:28 pm | | CONTEXT PLEASE
To Mr Court the kindest advice I can give is for him to read the original report by Dr Simpson and then ask himself if the questions he is asking and the points he is making are relevant to the actual conditions that existed at the time of the test. I am sure he will grasp that after he has viewed the AFI report which is on screen at:- "A FACT FILE FOR THE PERPLEXED" (in the dissertations pages of the Casebook). If he still feels that there are questions to be answered then I suggest that this is a matter, not for me, but for Dr Simpson, whose address is shown at the head of her report.
For others, let me emphasise that chloroacetamide is not a substance found in nature, like sodium chloride, or iron oxide etc. It has to be deliberately manufactured. The only reason that we were looking for this substance in the Diary ink was that it had been suggested (not by Barrett) that the ink used may have been made by Diamine of Liverpool. That the Diary was a fake had been established long before any of us had heard of Diamine thus the AFI test was never regarded as the sole means of identifying the hoax. It was simply an extra nail in the coffin. And the test was done because no-one in the Diary camp was prepared to move.
Now to put this discussion into perspective. In making his silly sneer Begg forgot to mention that the samples of Diary ink-on-paper tested by AFI were not punched from the pages by Dr Simpson but by Robert Kuranz in the USA in the presence of Robert Smith. And the fuss over the method later used to punch out a sample of Diary paper, and the very condition of that paper itself, is absurd. First, even if that punch had been rusty it would have made no difference to a test that was designed to search for chloroacetamide. Secondly, every test so far has had to work with the much-handled Diary pages. This goes for the tests run by Dr Baxendale, Dr Eastaugh, Bob Kuranz, AFI and Leeds. Not one of these testers has ever complained that the condition of the Diary made their tests impossible or even doubtful. Labs all over the world handle tests that involve documents that have been well-handled. In the case of the Diary samples the task was much easier than most, since the sought-after chemical was a rare bird indeed compared with the thousands of other chemicals that are found in everyday life.
For those who want to cling to the idea that the Diary ink was contaminated, there is a giant problem. Since the Diary is a modern fake why would anyone involved in the fake need to handle chloroacetamide? And how did they, by an act of contamination, happen to hit on a formula already in use by that Liverpool ink manufacturer? An unpublished formula at that!
I see now that Paul Begg is trying to minimise the sneer directed at Dr Simpson and once more brands me as extremely rude and derogatory. Get this straight. When I am faced with lies, half-truths, attempts at character-assassination, persistent fakery, concealments and disregard for legitimate evidence, then I speak out in a forthright manner. I am not one of that apathetic band who see the world's wrongs and dare not speak. (Guy Hatton will appreciate the quote)
As an example of my 'derogatory' style he mentions my "attack on Prof Rubinstein's ability" But what he doesn't know is is that in the year prior to the 'History Today' publication I saw the manuscript of Rubinstein's proposed article. It was so faulty and written without ANY real knowledge of the case against the Diary that I rang the Prof and directed his attention to the documents he urgently needed to read. This was done in a friendly spirit without any corrosive debate or exchanges. But when the article finally appeared I saw that the Prof had ignored every document mentioned to him and the article appeared almost as I first saw it. And note I was not the only one who tried to get the Prof to review the essential literature, hence my verdict that we had witnessed an affront to scholarship. No scholar ignores a body of evidence that has direct bearing on his written output.
In his own case Begg thinks it ill of me that I say he has ignored a letter sent to the A to Z Three. Well, I know that he did see that letter, but if he wants to say that health problems have made it hard for him to remember the contents then I am willing to accept that. At the same time I expect him to refrain from using material that he thinks helps his case, unless he is 100 per cent certain that he is clear on every point. Too often he is not. Too often he has been willing to level trumped-up charges against me, but never once has he had the courage to admit that the charges were false.
His attempt to hold me "responsible for a lot of the ill-feeling generated around the 'diary'.", is, however, a dishonest claim that cannot be explained away by ill-health. Begg knows, though he has never gone into print to admit so, that the ill-feeling was generated in the Diary camp long before I even saw the text and became involved. At my very first meeting with Feldman I was told by him that people in his team had warned him not to let me see the Diary or its text, on the grounds that "I lacked integrity". Begg knows that this statement was made, but says he was not responsible for the smear. Nevertheless the smear campaign began in 1993, before I had written anything on the matter, or given a single press statement.
After the AFI test the smears took a new vile form. Mrs Harrison took the initiative. She became the first to hint that the tests could have been rigged by me. On December 11th 1994, she wrote asking Dr Simpson to "...confirm that the samples which were sent to you by Mr Harris were in an unsealed packet." The implications of this letter were obvious to Dr Simpson who replied "The comment in the last sentence of your letter is puzzling, as there is no question of the samples being received here 'in an unsealed packet'...As a comment, it is difficult to see how such a sample could have been treated deliberately with chloroacetamide in nanogram amounts."
Following this, Feldman began telling reporters that I had contaminated the samples in order to get the results I wanted. He asserted that I was well able to do this since I had chloroacetamide in my hands and had supplied the chemical to AFI! He even stated that Dr Simpson had confirmed that the sample had been received by her in a form that indicated that it had been tampered with. I have placed some of the documents on this affair on screen, in particular a statement by journalist Philip Knightley and one by surgeon Nick Warren, the man who actually supplied the chemical to AFI. These lies were repeated for years afterwards and I have the proofs to demonstrate this.
When I countered these lies Feldman tried the bully tactic of threatening an expensive time-consuming libel action. But that type of conduct fails to impress me and he came a cropper. So when Begg tries to blame me for generating a lot of the ill-feeling around the Diary he is concealing the rotten state of affairs that was generated without any actions or words of mine. And it was Begg himself who introduced an acrimonious note to this site way before I posted a single sentence.
So if I question Begg's motives and standards I have good reason to do so. And we have a fine example of these odd standards when we read the questions put by him at the end of his piece. HE ALREADY KNOWS THE ANSWERS TO ALL OF THEM, SAVE ONE!
I have already given the date when the Sphere book arrived at Mike's house and so has Mrs Harrison. A complete set of the 'Sphere History of Literature' was in the Barretts' house following the Hillsborough disaster of 1987. They were meant to be sold to aid the disaster fund, but never were.
Alec Voller's views have been dealt with by me on screen. And I have a letter here from him in which he regrets that, in October 1995, he failed to mention that the ink could have been artificially aged by something as simple as a sunray lamp. In any case, as my posting has shown, Diamine ink will age-bronze in three years or less, of its own accord. While the Diary ink showed no signs of age-bronzing in 1992, 1993 and 1994.
Finally, in May 1993, Feldman simply refused to believe anything I had to say about the fake Dutton quotes used by McCormick. He said that he would prove me wrong by finding the Dutton chronicles. He tried, and was made the victim of yet another hoax! But Begg knows this. He also knows that if Feldman HAD approached McCormick in 1993 and had from him a denial of my charges then Feldman would have gleefully trumpeted the fact to the whole Ripper world.
Briefly to Caz: What did Liverpool Central Library have to say? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 25 October 2000 - 04:11 am | | Hi Melvin,
The Hillsborough disaster was in April 1989, but no matter.
Briefly, Melvin, I asked you to supply a date which should help you prove Mike helped forge the diary. I am not trying to prove anything. You are. So what date did Mike lodge the Sphere book with his solicitor?
Sorry if it's my first "awkward" question.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 25 October 2000 - 05:37 am | | Hi again Melvin,
Another quickie before I dash off for a few days.
Did Voller qualify his remark about the sunray lamp at all? Any mention of the effects this may have on the diary paper? Did he come to any definite conclusions in that letter to you?
And can you just confirm that his views, which you say have been dealt with by you on screen (sorry if I missed it), include his concession that the ink can only be Diamine, because AFI found the presence of chloroacetamide, used (exclusively it seems) in the manufacture of his own brand of ink?
Oh, and before I forget – that date please. As it’s such a crucial date in the Crashaw argument, you must have it pretty much to hand, and it might save whoever posts for you typing ‘chloroacetamide’ ever again.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
