|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 11, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 11, 2001
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 03:48 pm |        | RJ,
Would Ryan's book have assured the forgers that Maybrick's precise or even general whereabouts on the days of the Ripper murders and the days immediately on either side of the murders were not otherwise simply and fatally accounted for by travel records or any official or documented information?
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 03:49 pm | | Hi Chris,
Yes, it is certainly possible that Maybrick came first. But then, consider what I have written above, and try and decide therefore which possibility seems more likely, especially if we are now considering Mike Barrett as a suspected forger.
Here's what I mean. What follows is a somewhat revised version of my argument above.
On the one hand there seems to be some real care here (unless the fitting of the dates of the murders to Maybrick's known whereabouts and all the conflicting results of every analysis of all aspects of the case so far has been just dumb luck) and on the other hand there seems to be little or no care (unless it was assumed that by not making the handwriting even appear to match the forgers figured they would have actually improved their chances of having the question of authenticity kept alive because the problem would become more complex and paradoxical and therefore an easy explanation and an end to the matter would be even further deferred).
You see, both questions allow for both readings, one which speculates dumb luck and the other which speculates craft and the subtleties of misdirection and profound deceit.
The book, the ink, the language, the psychology, the scientific data and its conflicts, the expert testimony about the writing style -- in each and every case, it seems to me, arguments can be made convincingly both for an incredible streak of dumb luck and, at the same time and in the opposite direction, a subtle play of strategies involving missing and partial information and the importance of providing incomplete material in all aspects of the finished product.
They might not have been able to pull off a completely convincing and successful forgery either by riding this streak of incredible luck or by using the strategies of offering only incomplete and partial information and routinely misdirecting readers and investigators with false leads and red herrings; but these forgers have been able, so far, to avoid identification or even to avoid leaving clear and useful clues to their own particular identities.
Of course, if all the circumstances regarding the reception of this diary (the undecidable and conflicting results of: the ink analysis, the handwriting analysis, the science, the linguistic content, the textual research, the Ripper and Maybrick information, the problems of unknown events being referenced, etc.) were the result of a careful and strategic play of partial information, misdirection, subtle deceits and false leads and deliberately and consciously produced indeterminable artifacts and styles --- then this is one serious accomplishment and an impressive execution of a plan.
If, on the other hand, all of these things and their accompanying uncertainties of age and of authenticity and consistencies of content were actually the result of an incredible streak of dumb luck and fortuitous circumstance -- then, as I say, these are very, very lucky people.
Which reading is more likely? Has it been dumb luck or clever strategy?
Now here's an even more interesting question, that might not be as simple as it first appears:
Which reading is more likely if we assume that Mike is our forger?
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 04:14 pm | | Chris,
I think there is a fair amount of confusion developing over the nature and results of the various ink-tests.
Re: your point about experts judging the ink "consistent"with being Victorian:
I may be wrong, but I think only Voller (head chemist at Diamine) said the ink was probably old - and he based that judgement on the fact that when he saw it (in 1995) it was by then very bronzed.
He apparently was not aware that the ink had been perfectly black in 1992 and had only started to bronze 1994-5.
Tests done on samples of Diamine iron gall MS ink show that it bronzes about three years after being applied to paper. Slightly faster if a steel nib pen is used. With this regard the timeline for the bronzing of the diary-ink may be seen as instructive.
Also the comments by Nicholas Eastaugh have been used by Harrison and others to suggest he was claiming the diary "appeared" to be old. But this is actually a completely inaccurate and rather distorted reading of what Eastaugh actually said.
In a letter to Smith Gryphon, June 1993, Eastaugh made his actually opinions very clear:
"I think it would be very dangerous to quote [me]...saying 'I say the ink is Victorian' when I don't - merely that it could be. I also want to underline that I am unwilling to highlight that the ink behaves like the Victorian reference material without the qualifying statement that we cannot actually distinguish it on the basis of solubility from later inks of similar composition. And the ink of the diary must also behave like inks applied substantially later than 1889"
As you can see from the above, Eastaugh never said that the ink appeared to be Victorian, or anything like it.
What he said was that on the basis of his tests it was impossible to tell how old it was, and that it could equally well have been applied in 1888 or 1988.
It's a very great misfortune that the various books on the subject have never made that clear. But I hope this helps a little now.
I'm intending (when I have time) to do a small comparative analysis between the content of the original test reports and the way in which those reports have been presented in the various books and internet articles on the subject. I hope it will help to shed light on the subject.
By the way all - the above is to the best of my knowledge, a simple statement of the facts as they currently stand. Any errors are unintentional and any corrections will be welcome.
But if anyone just feels they don't like or can't accept these facts, then that's really their problem. I don't have time or inclination to do the horse and water thing any more.
K |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Hi, John:
I think it is dumb luck combined with cleverness and guile that leaves us in the situation we are in. The lack of match of the handwriting to Maybrick's handwriting, the use of a scrapbook, and the pages cut out are all missteps. I would add the Poste House as another foot in the post hole, though Paul contests that view. On the other hand, the subtlety in which, as you pointed out, no dates are given, even of the murders themselves, and the lack of much if any extraneous information except for the Poste House, Mrs. Hammersmith, and the Manchester murders, other than could be found in existing books on the Ripper and Maybrick cases, betokens cleverness and guile.
So to some extent you are right: the forger was extremely lucky. Yet, the Diary is also in a lot of ways a competent enough forgery, or as you succinctly put it, a "serious accomplishment and an impressive execution of a plan."
Melvin Harris might contest this conclusion, no doubt with words such as "shoddy." But then Melvin has not been able to make the Diary go away, has he? Books are still being written and revised, a film is being made, the money machine continues to click over. So, reveal your information, Melvin. Only you can stop the money machine!
John, I am not going to speculate on whether Mike was the forger because you yourself have said there is not enough evidence to allow us to do so. So I won't step into that particular post hole, John! Note my cleverness and guile and the ingenious way I sashay away from your trap. 
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 04:19 pm | | Hi, Karoline:
Thanks for your important clarifications about the ink tests. I appreciate your input. Your post crossed with mine.
All the best
Chris |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 04:44 pm | | Karoline,
I am out of my element in any ink-test discussion, since the science escapes me and I must rely on others to explain the conflicts between results and interpretations.
You wrote above that Voller "apparently was not aware that the ink had been perfectly black in 1992 and had only started to bronze 1994-5."
Do you know that Alec Voller was unaware of this?
The reason I ask is because the language of his conclusion seems to suggest that this would not have made a difference to him, since he uses the word "Certainly" and gives a longer time frame than three years. I seem to remember reading this in the A-Z entry as well.
According to the A-Z, after detecting nigrosine in the ink, he did, as you say, notice the irregular fading and bronzing. But his conclusion went farther. Voller wrote:
"The general appearance is characeristic of documents which are 90+ years old and it is certainly not out of the realms of possibility that it dates back to 1889. Certainly, [the ink] did not go on the paper within recent years."
Now, I have no idea whether the head chemist at Diamine is right about this or not. Nor do I know what he considers "recent years" to include. But it seems here that even if the ink had faded considerably since 1992, his conclusion, in 1995, that it could not have been put on the paper in recent years seems to include 1992, even if it was black then. But maybe not.
Just wanted to see what Voller actually said and what it might mean. Voller wrote this in 1995. How far back would we consider "recent years?" The last ten (not before 1985)? The last five (not before 1990)?
Anyway, I seem to recall Melvin Harris announcing, after the AfI tests, that "the tests prove that the ink in the diary is Diamine."
Alec Voller, head chemist for Diamine, did announce that the ink was not Diamine.
I would call these conflicting results.
Of course, Melvin also announced at around the same time:
"The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known."
Is it still "soon," even now?
Some things turn out simply not to be true.
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 05:00 pm | | As I go through the messages, I want to note that we have a piece of data! You may have already discovered this, but it is new to me.
The data come from Chris' post of Thursday, May 10, 2001 - 03:23 pm:
"One of the things I keep thinking about in terms of Mike Barrett, whether he is the forger or not, is that he has apparently remarked a number of times that he thinks the Ripper is a big story, the greatest of all time, etc."
Now can this data, in its general formulation, be turned into fact by determining if it is True or False?
Can we also bring any more specificity to it?
1) When did Mike Barrett first mention to anyone he thought JtR was "a big story, the greatest of all time..." or words to that effect?
2) Is the witness unimpeachable? His wife, even if she were not suspected on direct involvement in forgery, would be an impeachable source...she could be seen as trying to help (or hurt, I suppose!) her spouse.
--------------------
A word on the 'diary's' text (though we shouldn't be jumping ahead so early):
Regarding any clues in the 'diary' that match the specifics of JtR's crimes:
1) Any perceived matches between facts of the case and the 'diary' prove nothing about forgery. Why? Because if the facts match, the obvious first argument is "Of course they match! James Maybrick is Jack the Ripper! Duh!"
2) Matches or similarities found in books about JtR have the same value since they are (more or less!) derived from the 'facts' of the JtR case. It would be impossible to distinguish whether the 'facts' came from a second-hand source, first-hand sources (files on the case kept by the police, etc.), or are 'evidence' of James' Maybrick's supposed confessions being authentic.
We need, when the time comes to consider the content of the 'diary,' to point out glaring (hopefully) contradictions of first- or second-hand facts.
Then we need to be absolutely certain that the contradictions can in no way whatsoever be misconstrued as knowledge known only to JtR. This may prove to be the greatest hurdle...I don't know right now.
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 05:03 pm | | Hi Chris,
What I meant about which scenario is more likely if we think Mike is the forger was, what do we think of Mike?
If Mike is the forger, do we then assume that the successful execution of this project, which still almost ten years later has the experts and the amateurs arguing about who might have done it, all without revealing the identity of the forger, was probably the result of a clever and strategic use of misdirection and partial information and definitive research into Maybrick's whereabouts on the murder weekends and clever red herrings and false leads and the right ink to produce conflicting results and a handwriting that could not be identified or successfully age-determined? Or, if we assume Mike was our man, do we then assume that much of this is just the accidental benefit of imprecise tests and analyses and incredibly good luck and fortunate coincidences of planning and reception?
I don't know Mike, so I can't say. But how we answer this tells us nothing about the forger or the probable identity of the forger (that questions remains separate and still completely in doubt) . How we answer this tells us what we think Mike might have been capable of accomplishing. That's why I asked.
By the way, anyone have any word on the new Kane samples and their availability to all of us here, via simply posting a .jpg of them? It would seem easy enough. Why aren't they on this board yet? I don't understand.
Has anyone agreed yet to have Caroline foot the bill to have Sue examine them professionally?
If the handwriting isn't Mike's or Anne's or Tony's, then we should be looking at Kane's carefully (since he's the only other one so far who has been accused) and realizing that if it's not him we have someone out there who put this pen to this paper and we have no idea whatsoever who this someone is. We have never heard of him, apparently.
So it had better damn well be Kane's, or we are in serious trouble, because a whole new figure, completely unmentioned, then becomes necessary, and that could be anyone.
Now that's fun to think about,
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 05:22 pm | | Once the book left the hands of the Barretts, the last suspected (only suspected?) participants in the forgery, we have to examine what was asked for, what information was provided to the examiners, etc.
As we need to ensure that no bias was introduced by the formulation of the questions the experts and scientists were asked, we need to ensure we do not make assumptions about the skill/intent/etc of the forgers based on the scientific data.
If we ask a lab bad or biased questions, and they give us the answer we basically asked for, is any of that the fault or the intent of the forger's?
Karoline has shown an example in her post of Thursday, May 10, 2001 - 04:14 pm, that we had better not just weigh conflicting lab results and experts opinions. We need to go back and examine:
1) what information was provided to the experts/scientists?
(And the example of bronzing makes me very nervous -- for several reasons...what kind of "science" was applied to the ink if non-scientists observed the bronzing process take place over a 2-3 year period, and the "scientist" based his conclusion on the ink's age on bronzing? Something is very wrong here -- and it's not with any of us, the forgers, or the suspected forgers. Obviously bronzing is not a very accurate measurement of ink's age, is it? Why did the expert use it -- you don't have to answer; you just might want to join me shivering nervously in the corner!)
2) What was the wording of the instrument (or request) given to the experts that guided their tests/examination?
You get the idea. We need to see these documents, compare them with the test results, and look for conscious or unconscious bias.
Yaz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 05:50 pm | | John--Melvin Harris quite some time back had spoken to Alec Voller & posted a response on these boards. It might be worth your time to look it up.
By the way, though it is constently stated on this site that the handwriting in the diary isn't Anne's, Mike's, etc., the impression I had from last summer is that the handwriting of the various people mentioned has never been actually studied & compared with the Maybrick document by an expert. If this is not the case, please correct me.
There is nothing in Ryan's book (or anywhere else) that I have yet found that defintely rules out Maybrick being in London on the dates of the Whitechapel murders--although I'm still following a few leads in this direction. In general, it seem unlikely to me that Maybrick could spend too much time away from his office & the exchange in the fall of the year, when cotton is harvested in the U.S. The diary suggest that Maybrick wrote the dear Boss letter(s), committed the double event, wrote the lusk letter. How much time would he have had to have spent in London? Too much for someone stationed in Liverpool, during the height of the cottton season & he being a broker? I'd say he's not the Ripper.
RJP
P.S. Have you ever noticed the reference to Mrs. Maybrick by Molly Bloom in Ulysses? |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 05:53 pm | | Final thoughts on "experts" until we know more about what was asked of them and what information was provided:
We need to factor out our own conclusions and potential biases about any of the current test results at this point; especially if we suspect the test, the questions, whatever may be misleading or limiting the tests.
1) I have serious questions, perhaps unwarranted, of either the competency of the tests and/or the presence yet another set of biases we cannot determine: that is, a natural bias of the scientists and experts to be perceived as knowing either more or less than the results (the objective, scientific measurements -- if any!) actually show.
2) The limitations inherent in the questions again:
a) Are there no other tests besides solubility that were asked for to determine the ink's age?
Are there tests which one expert is knowledgable to perform, combined with another test by another scientist in an unrelated area, that would more conclusively pinpoint the ink's age on the paper? Neither expert may know of the work of the other -- being in separate, unrelated fields.
Who is qualified to draft the questions and submit them along with appropriate samples to the right labs/experts/scientists?
b) How many inks available in the market over the last 50 years would provide this uncertainty over the age of when ink was put to paper?
Can we exclude some? A number would help us at least in the area of "sophistication."
If all inks are this unreliable in telling age, the forger couldn't lose, no matter what ink he or she chose? But if there are only 3 out of 150, and the forger chose one of the three, we have a higher probability (where's Mike?) that the forger was a professional.
Science is the same as what they say about computer programs: 'Garbage in; garbage out!'
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 06:34 pm | | Hi RJ.
I have read Melvin's responses to Alec, a while back, and I seem to recall that Alec admits to his expecting to find ink in its neat state and that dilution would alter its normal appearance. And I believe Alec also admitted that any bronzing present might not have been there three years before.
I do not recall however, that Alec finally took back the claim that the ink was still not Diamine. He might have. My memory of everything that Melvin claims that Alec admitted is foggy and I'm certainly not going back through Melvin's prose to find out.
Instead I'll rely on you, RJ. Did Alec Voller ever publicly announce that the ink was definitely Diamine? If so, I'm glad. That's one problem solved. Now you have me curious. Can you cite where Alec Voller, head chemist at Diamine, affirms that this is Diamine ink?
RJ, do you think the writing in the diary is Mike or Anne's? I've never even seen their writing. I know people who have. They are not experts. So I readily admit that I have no idea if the writing is Mike or Anne's. But if it is not Mike's or Anne's or Tony's (and no one has even suggested it was Tony's), then it better be Kane's or we are in a peck of trouble, aren't we?
 Finally, RJ, thanks for the answer to my question about Ryan's book. And this is more important than the first two things for me.
What does it tell us about how much research the forgers must have done beyond reading the Ryan book?
If I'm forging a diary that says that James Maybrick is Jack the Ripper, the first and most important thing I have to be sure of is that James Maybrick's whereabouts on four or five specific weekends in the Fall of 1888 cannot be officially documented or accounted for anywhere. I have to be sure that Maybrick did not go anywhere on the days surrounding the Whitechapel murders where he left any sort of paper trail that might have remained on the record. He cannot be shown to be somewhere definite on the days in question. If he is, my whole project becomes immediately and fatally doomed.
So I must determine for sure that Maybrick's precise or even general whereabouts on the days of the Ripper murders and the days immediately on either side of the murders were not otherwise simply and fatally accounted for by travel records or any official or documented information.
Apparently the forgers could not determine this from reading Ryan's book.
They must have had to determine this in other ways.
This seems to contradict any claims that the forgers could have gleaned all of the Maybrick material they would need simply from one or two books.
--John
PS: RJ, any idea why the Kane samples remain unavailable to post here as a jpg or two? And are we still within the time-frame of "soon," wherein, as Melvin announced, the identities of the three people involved in the forgery will "soon" be made known? How long is "soon," anyway? |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 08:03 pm | | On the choice between Maybrick and an unknown London male:
Assume an unknown male of 1888 London (or anywhere, actually) had been selected as the 'author' of the 'diary;' in order to ensure that the person was at least of the right age and lived long enough to murder Kelly (and to be certain there were no other documents or information that would exclude him), the forger would have to search through "public" records and government offices, correct?
1) In England, to find even birth and death certificates and the like, are you required to leave a signature before you can examine documents?
2) Are you also asked to prove your identity by showing a driver's license or something?
If the answer to these two questions is 'Yes,' you may have an answer as to why a well-known 1888 person was chosen rather than an unknown.
With a well-known 'author,' the forger would not be required to either leave a paper trail, risk an associate doing the work with whom he or she could be connected, or -- the shade of George Smiley might nod in approval -- forge identity cards/papers. Too much risk or too much work.
Choosing a Maybrick may mean that all necessary documents could be found in libraries or bookstores. And of all the well-known figures of that time, is it possible that there is more publically-available information on Maybrick -- involved, so to speak, in a murder trial -- rather than any other plausible figure?
So you (thinking as the forger, so to speak) trade the risk of leaving a trail/evidence for the difficulty of matching Maybrick's schedule with the JtR crimes.
Sound reasonable?
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 08:34 pm | | Hi Yaz,
An interesting piece of speculation concerning the need to leave a record of your searches and research if you choose a previously anonymous but still establishable suspect. I don't know what is required where. The only place in England I've ever done any research is in the library reading room and rare documents room in The British Museum, and I had to be interviewed and come with a letter of reference and leave a sample of all my various bodily fluids (well, maybe not that last thing -- but the first two are true).
However, if you choose Maybrick, the trade off is considerably greater than just having to match his whereabouts to the crimes.
When you choose Maybrick, you are correct that you then have a lot more information available in libraries and booskstores. However, you also then have a lot more information which has been long and readily available to others and which your writing has to hold up against. When you choose Maybrick you start writing about someone that other people know a lot about -- some of these people might even be experts on him. You've already set yourself up against historians by choosing Jack the Ripper -- the body of info is serious there, but you're not in quite as precarious a situation, since people don't know for sure who the Ripper was and therefore there's room to play with the uncertainties that still surround the crimes. But when you choose Maybrick, you've now chosen a single, specific person that people know. Now you've doubled your potential for error (that is not a math assertion, please don't read it as one, anyone).
Plus, if you can't tell from the available books whether Maybrick could even have been the Ripper, because you can't tell from the available books whether he was traceably somewhere else on the murder weekends, then you might have to do some of the records-research anyway, and you're right back where you started. So it might seem like a wise choice at first, but it does come with its own set of serious difficulties.
Just a thought,
--John
PS: Any chance we could see those Kane samples, anyone? I just feel like I have to ask every so often, for the sake of our examination of the evidence here. |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 10:45 pm | | Hey John:
Now did I ever say it was easy to commit forgery, period (grins!).
You are quite right. And I don't want to push the idea as The Idea, however...(there's always a 'however,' isn't there?)
However, I think it would be a lot easier to hide or explain any paper trail regarding Maybrick than Mr. X of 1888 London:
1) This is especially true if we also have no clue as to who did the research for the forgery.
2) Many people may have looked in on Mr. James' documents because of his death; easy place to hide your name.
3) Some people might even have looked at Mr. Jimmy's records if they 'thought' they were related to him...or, don't hurt me now, Chris...his wife...or at least needed that story to explain why their name might appear in a list of searchers for Mr. Jim's records.
As for Mr. X, the minute the 'diary' is revealed -- unleashed? -- there would be a run to find out more about Mr. X. How strange it would be to find the same name over and over again who previously looked at records for Mr. X -- whom few people, if any, had ever bothered with before the 'diary.' And what if the chain of possession for the 'diary' includes, in either its trunk or a main branch, that same name?
But I know and you know and we all know that none of this stuff is even data yet; it's just theories, looking for avenues where data might be found.
--------------
Speaking of Kane...
We could try to follow the book from the Barretts back to anyone else possibly involved; however...
However, we could also try to follow the money from the 'diary's' earnings, assuming that at least the hypothetical penman would want to be paid -- and hoping he was not paid before the 'diary' started making anyone money. In view of that, let me offer a ghoulish, no doubt bizzare, train of thought on that subject:
1) When did Devereaux make his will?
2) When did he die?
3) What was the cause of death? That is, did he know he was dying and had x amount of time to live?
4) You have signatures from Devereaux's will, yes? Do you have a copy of the complete will? Who were the beneficiaries? Or were there any large sums owed by Devereaux that were taken out of his estate?
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 May 2001 - 11:58 pm | | Hi Yaz,
Yes, they are just theories and we don't know anything about how the plan to make Maybrick the Ripper developed or what decisions were made or why. But we do at least know that someone wrote a diary claiming Maybrick was the Ripper and I wouldn't have written such a diary until I was fairly sure that Maybrick couldn't be quickly dismissed as the Ripper because he had in fact been traceable somewhere else when the murders were taking place and couldn't have been in London. To determine this, I would have to do some research into what records of Maybrick's comings and goings were available. So either way, I guess I'd still be stuck looking somewhere for this stuff. But yes, I suspect I could also have tried to hide my name as I went about it. So I see your point, Yaz.
-------------------------
Speaking of the spectral Mr. Kane,
On April 22nd, at 10:08 am, Karoline wrote to Paul:
"I think Peter has made it pretty clear where the current investigation is placed.
"As he says, the diary handwriting does not resemble AG's or MB's. Last year it was considered possible that one of them may have altered their handwriting - and this was why it was being advocated that a professional document examiner should be consulted.
"And this was why Peter answered your questions by saying he couldn't comment finally until such a document examiner had seen the writing.
"Since that time, a larger example of Kane's writing as well as various additional data has come to light. And this has changed things considerably. I can't comment on that data at this stage since it isn't in the public forum - but the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'.
"Kane of course can be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979."
Now I take it from this that what convinced everyone that the analysis of Mike and Anne's handwriting was no longer pressing was that the new (still inexplicably unseen here) Kane samples made such an analysis no longer necessary.
Here RJ, we have Karoline and Peter saying that Mike and Anne's writing doesn't match the diary's (unless it was somehow deliberately altered in any case).
How, incidentally, any meaningful "consensus" can take place about something only a handful of people have apparently seen is beyond me, but I suppose we are just meant to trust Karoline that such a "consensus" has been established somewhere by someone and we're not supposed to worry about it. What a strange way to assert a claim.
But then there is this amazing sentence, which I feel bears repeating:
"Kane of course can be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979."
That was easy. Nothing to it. "Kane, of course can be tied in with the Barretts..."
Man, talk about shivering in the corner, Yaz. This is how links are established? This is careful and objective reading of evidence (or, should I say, the complete lack of any evidence)? We have nothing here even suggesting that Kane ever met or knew or knew of Mike Barrett; no evidence whatsoever of any kind -- but still there he is, "tied in" with Mike. And you can't even see what is tying them together, except that they both knew Tony Devereaux. And we're not even sure that Mike's story about getting the book from Tony is in any way true. We don't even have evidence to support that one and yet we are "tying" Kane to Mike because they both knew Tony? Despite the fact that there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere that has ever even been offered to suggest that Mike Barrett ever met or knew or even knew of Mr. Kane. And believe me, I have asked repeatedly if such evidence exists. I have heard nothing but silence in reply.
Well, I'll say this much. If these larger samples of Kane's handwriting do not match this diary, somebody owes someone's memory some serious apologies. And we all have to go looking for another penman, perhaps from the black void of the as yet unknown and unnamed.
I say, let's see the writing.
--John
PS: I do hope we are not going to have to wait as long to see the samples of Kane's handwriting as we have had to wait for that notorious other "...will soon be made known" to arrive. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 02:05 am | | Hi Yaz
As I read through all these posts, let me quickly answer your question to me about whether or nor Maybrick can be completely ruled out. I guess he can. I guess the idea of an old forger can be ruled out too. Unless, of course, analysis of the source data ultimately points to either as a possibility. As far as an old forger is concerned, I first mooted such a possibility during one of Feldman’s filming sessions simply because I was concerned that the polarisation into pro- and anti- was causing a bias in the questioning of experts, such as has recently been voiced in the last few posts.
As far as the ink tests are concerned, Alec Voller saw the ‘diary’ later. The experts at Jarndyce and the British Museum saw the ‘diary’ in June 1992. Now, I don’t know what they would have naked-eye looked for to distinguish recent from old, but whatever it was they didn’t find it. So, do we take it that the ink had been on the paper longer than two or three months? If we do then the idea that the ‘diary’ was penned after the maroon diary proved unsuitable is rubbish. And if the ink was indeed put on the paper in 1991 or earlier, we have to ask why Mike or whoever the forger was waited so long before taking the ‘diary’ to Doreen Montgomery. And if we surmise that the interval was because the forger was waiting for the ink to “age”, then I would submit that the maroon diary is a maroon herring and all arguments indicating Mike’s guilt as the forger based on it specifically are rubbish too. An explanation for Mike’s purchase of the maroon diary must therefore be sought elsewhere than in it being an alternative for the scrapbook.
So, the text being on Mike’s word processor and the purchase of the maroon diary could – on the basis of an analysis of the data – be considerably less indicative of Mike’s highly probable guilt than has hitherto been argued. Maybe evidence or argument will emerge to show that the masonry flaking from these two pillars supporting the Mike dunnit theory is but a trick of the light, but this analysis of the data is at least isolating some questions with real meaning attached to them.
But to return to your question, if the ink was put on the page before 1992 then we must ask ‘how long before?’ and in so doing we are opening a small crack to several possibilities that further close analysis of the source data may widen. One of them is the possibility that Mike really was given the ‘diary’ by Tony Devereux nearly a year before he took it to Doreen Montgomery. Another is that Mike genuinely doesn’t know where Tony got it from. Is there any evidence that neither of these possibilities could be true? Because if we actually seriously consider the possibility that Mike wasn’t involved in this forgery then we do have to consider the broader range of possibilities about who the forger was and what their purpose was. I doubt, though, that we'd be looking at Maybrick and it is too early to speculate about a date of creation prior to 1990 (since we have the Sphere book giving a date for the Crashaw quote which has to be post mid-1989 - unless, of course, Crashaw falls by the wayside for some reason). |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 03:50 am | | A few more thoughts - well, questions really - as they occur to me whilst reading the posts.
RJP: Not being difficult but when you write “As to the 'expertise' of the forgers: frankly, I tend toward 'shoddy' forgery rather than 'sophisticated' forgery.” I wonder if you could elaborate a little. It’s not the content, but the overall effort that went into the creation of the 'diary' that I am talking about, and the awareness of the forger to have made that effort. To have fooled the British Museum and Jarndyce experts, no matter how cursory or limited a glance they gave it (and we don’t know that it was either cursory or a glance), would “shoddy” have passed their examination?
And I think it is very unfair of you to mention a free Brick Lane curry. That’s even more temping than a tuna, anchovy and caper pizza!
Hi Chris
It is worthwhile looking at the Rendell Report and separating criticism of Shirley’s book from criticism of the ‘diary’; and it is also worth factoring in, as it were, the fact that there was already an aroma of fish when Rendell was called in by Time Warner, which means that one has to allow for looking for what one already suspects is there. By no means denying the results of the Rendell Report, I think it repays very careful analysis. |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 08:11 am | | Hey John:
I can accept the wording Karoline uses as long as we are firmly anchored in the theoretical. By this I mean, we've agreed that the Barretts are in the middle of all this (whether they actually committed forgery, participated knowingly in the forgery, or are simply unfortunate dupes used by the forgers). The Barretts presented the 'diary.'
So, if the Barretts didn't actually do the forging, we're looking at their story (or stories) of where they got the 'diary.' They mention Devereaux.
Devereaux is now linked (or tied in with) the Barretts. None of us put Devereaux in that uncomfortable spot, the Barretts did.
If we either speculate or know that Devereaux did not write the forgery, either, we are looking for a person known by Devereaux -- possibly unknown to the Barretts -- who at least passed the 'diary' to Devereaux, but also possibly could be the penman.
If Kane knew Devereaux, he is merely one person out of all Devereaux's known -- and unknown at this time -- friends/associates/what-have-you. Theoretically, he is tied to the Barretts through his tie/link to Devereaux. That is one statement that is True, if your criteria for "tied with the Barretts" is simply this theoretic link based on association with one or more of those involved in the suspected forgery.
But there seems to be a second statement that more firmly links Kane to the 'diary' than that he knew Devereaux, who passed the 'diary' on -- in one story -- to the Barretts.
Someone or a group of people believe or think Kane's handwriting either does or may match the 'diary's' handwriting.
Not everyone has seen enough of Kane's handwriting to take an informed or theoretic position on Kane's handwriting matching the 'diary's.' Which is why Caz has offered to have Kane's handwriting professionally analyzed -- we can either strengthen a case of forgery against Kane or rule him out based on the analysis.
So, I have no problem with what Karoline wrote since "the tie" between Kane and the Barretts is simply Devereaux.
And until the handwriting analysis already performed on Kane's sample of same compared to the 'diary' is made more widely known, we can't say anybody's right or wrong if they say Kane's handwriting matches the 'diary's' -- or even if they had said Kane's handwriting doesn't match the diary's.
This is frustrating for those who haven't seen the Kane handwriting or the handwriting-comparison test results. But that's a different issue; a strong "tie to the Barretts" than simple association with someone who once allegedly possessed the 'diary.'
Why can't we either see the Kane test results or have the Kane handwriting analyzed via Caz's offer?
What prevents movement on this issue?
--------
Pual:
To put it simply, reagrding your two posts...I agree...especially with a need to re-review the scientific tests and their results before we continue making assumptions or assertions based on the tests.
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 08:36 am | | But Yaz,
We have to be precise with what we mean by "tied in" and "linked." Even theoretically. Surely there is a difference between two people knowing a third person and those first two people being clearly "tied in" with each other. Otherwise, we get perilously close to guilt by association. You see, the point behind this particular "tied in" was that if Kane's handwriting matched and Kane knew Tony and Mike knew Tony then Mike probably knew this was a forgery. Such a claim would of course need at least one single piece of evidence that would show that Kane even knew Mike existed or that Mike even knew Kane existed. To simply claim the two of them are "tied in" is to assume that fact without in any way offering such evidence. That is simply not sound reasoning.
Yes, Yaz, I agree that if all this "tied in" meant, on a theoretical level, was that the two men simply knew the same person, then sure, that is self-evidently true. But it doesn't. The claim here is that Kane (as possible penman) is "linked" to Barrett and therefore Barrett probably knew of the forgery in advance. This is of course nonsense. Kane is not "linked" to Barett at all in this way and never has been, not by a single piece of evidence whatsoever, reliable or otherwise. This "link" that would suggest that Mike knew Kane or even knew Kane ever existed remains purely the stuff of fantasy at this point and that is what I was reminding everyone.
See Yaz, there is still no reason to think that Mike Barrett ever met or knew or knew of Gerard Kane.
So claiming that because both of these guys knew Tony they are "tied in" together is simply misleading.
It is also a completely unevidenced claim, if this "tied in" means anything more that the two men simply both knew Tony. And believe me, this link has been offered here as more than just both men knew Tony, it has been offered as evidence of the likely participation of both of them together in a crime. That's what is scary.
I can cite you post after post that suggests that this "link" between Kane and Mike (which by the way we have no evidence ever existed) makes them likely co-conspirators. This is dangerous stuff. And if it was all being as carefully qualified as you suggest in your post, I would have no objection. But precisely the opposite is the case. This "link" and "tie-in" is being used as an implication of and as evidence of complicity. And this "link" or "tie-in" does not in any way shape or form suggest that Mike Barrett either met, knew, or even knew of Mr. Kane.
That is what I would like to insist upon.
Also, even if the Kane handwriting matches (and this is becoming the stuff of myth at this point), this is not evidence that Mike Barrett ever met Kane or knew Kane or knew that the book that Tony gave him was written by Kane in any case. Therefore, even this is not evidence that Kane was necessarily "tied-in" or "linked" to Barrett in any meaningful or evidentiary or complicitous sense at all. We must be very careful here to be precise. And these terms are being used around here in ways that are neither careful nor precise.
This is not a good thing.
But hey, according to Karoline, there is already a "consensus" about Mr. Kane's writing and the match. So why are we worried?
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 08:46 am | | A few facts about the ink and particularly the Voller/Diamine question which might help to clarify a few things:
Re: the bronzing of the diary-ink :
1.When the diary was first examined in 1992, the ink showed absolutely no sign of bronzing anywhere in its sixty-plus pages.
2.By October 1995 it was showing noticeable signs of bronzing. I believe this has continued to progress to the present time.
3.Bronzing is a very variable process. It is progressive, but not constant or consistent. Many factors can speed it up or slow it down.
4.However, it's considered next to impossible for a document that is approaching a hundred years old to exhibit absolutely no sign of bronzing. The majority of documents that are more than ten or twenty years old display some degree of bronzing.
The complete absence of bronzing in the diary in 1992 is therefore an indication that the ink had been on the paper a lot less than a hundred years.
Re: the Voller/Diamine question:
1. Diamine was a very small, Liverpool-based company. Voller was the only chemist they employed, and their distribution area seems to have been geographically limited.
2. Voller identified the diary-ink as being an iron gall ink with nigrosine as a sighting agent
3. Diamine began using nigrosine as a sighting agent in 1974
4. To the best of my knowledge no one has been able to find any other modern firm, except Diamine, producing iron gall ink with nigrosine as a sighting agent.
5. If Voller's own conclusions (that the diary-ink is an iron gall ink with nigrosine) are correct, then unless anyone can identify another manufacturer who produced iron gall ink with nigrosine as a sighting agent, the diary ink must be Diamine, whatever doubts Voller expressed.
The implications of a modern forgery about a Liverpool man, discovered in Liverpool and written with an iron gall ink that is traceable only to a single Liverpool manufacturer - are something I leave to the individual judgment and conscience of those who read this!
K |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 09:05 am | | K writes:
"the diary ink must be Diamine, whatever doubts Voller expressed."
Well, I'm glad someone here knows the science better than Alec Voller (the only chemist employed by Diamine), who had the audacity to express doubts...
Now, about that "consensus" concerning Kane's handwriting...
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 09:14 am | | Hi, Yaz:
I have to agree with John that nothing has been produced so far to link Kane with the Barretts. Sure Tony Devereaux knew Gerard Kane. Kane's signature on Devereaux's 1979 will is proof of this. But, as I am sure you do, Yaz, I know a lot of people and have many people I call friends who do not know each other and have never met each other. So, even though each of these individuals have me as their mutual friend, they are not personally acquainted with each other. I am sure most of us could cite similar examples from our lives. So, just because Mike and Anne Barrett knew Tony Devereaux is no proof whatsoever that the couple ever met or even knew of the existence of Gerard Kane.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 09:31 am | | | A quick question on a superbly sunny day, but I seem to have missed the relevance of Alec Voller in this discussion. It’s not that I question anything to do with bronzing, but if the absence of bronzing was such a dead cert giveaway, I am curious to know why neither the British Museum’s nor the antiquarian bookdealer’s expert thought to mention it. In any event, since we are trying to decide when, between mid-1989 and mid-1992, the ink was put on the paper, I’m not quite sure where Alec Voller’s observations are currently relevant or helpful, especially if it means the ink could have been put on the paper some ten to twenty years prior to the onset of the bronzing. |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 09:40 am | | Hey John:
I agree with your assessment on the neccesity to clarify what "tied in with" or "associated with" means. Devereaux's parents are "tied to" Devereaux who is tied to the Barretts. Is that association particluarly meaningful? No, not unless someone can demonstrate that Devereaux's parents possessed the 'diary' at some point.
But I think everything we say and do here carries very clear dangers -- at least to me -- since we are all bandying about names and hypothesizing various degrees of involvement in forgery. We may be self-satisfied that, at any given point in this process, we are "safe" or "fair" or even "correct" in asserting one thing over another. It is not at all clear that our own satisfaction over the propriety or accuracy of what we are doing and saying would also seem so to an objective outside observer. This issue may be why some people cannot or will not participate in this discussion.
We are all taking this risk of being morally and/or legally out-of-bounds. Do we stop, or do we continue? Saying that we should continue carefully or cautiously may be meaningful to us, but again, would our definitions of those terms, or our statements, or our actions be seen as identical with what the Barretts or anyone else might think -- right down to any potential legal authorities who may be invoked?
Where the frustration over raising Kane lies is in Karoline's other piece of information that does seem to give the Kane/Devereaux association meaning to the 'diary' forgery: an analysis of Kane's handwriting.
But to be fair to Karoline, she seems not be have any ownership over the handwriting or the analysis results. She seems to have been shown or at least told that there is a consensus (amongst who, we don't know yet, correct?) that the handwritings match.
Obviously, if such a clearly demonstrated match between the two handwritings can be shared with us all, it would save us all a lot of work and speculation.
But our quarrel, if we have any right to such a quarrel -- the owner of the handwriting and the analysis may be planning to publish the stuff, after all -- is with the owner of the handwriting and the analysis...not Karoline unless you need to or want to prove she is lying (e.g., "the stuff of myth" comment is coming pretty damn close to such an accusation) about someone having the handwriting example, or having been let in on the consensus over the match with the diary. I think such a drastic statement is unfair and unnecessary at this point.
Let's look at what we can do:
Can we find out who is the owner of the handwriting and the analysis?
Can Karoline pass our request on to that owner?
Would she even be willing to act as a go-between?
We can only ask, not demand. In the absence of what may be clear evidence of Kane's having forged the 'diary,' we can either:
1) carry on with other avenues of inquiry;
2) or sit and wait;
3) or ask Karoline if she'll tell us who has ownership of the handwriting and analysis so that we can go directly to the owner; leaving Karoline out of what may be an awkward situation for her;
4) or do we drop this entire matter because we really have no legal/moral right to carry out this kind of investigation (naming names, associating some imprecise, maybe totally personal definition of "guilt")...either at all or at least in public.
-----
Karoline, did ink experts observe this gradual bronzing over the years? I ask because of the obvious rebuttal a pro-authenticity proponent would make is to question the observer(s)' credentials to judge on such matters.
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 10:27 am | | Hi Paul,
I think I see your point. But I want to be clear, since your paragraph zipped along quickly. Mid-1989 -- you get this from the soccer disaster and the alleged arrival of the Sphere Guide, right? If the ink turns out to be put on the paper at least ten years earlier than when Voller saw it 1995, then that makes the Sphere Guide's use in the diary something of a problem, right? So we better assume that the ink had to be put there since 1989 and not before 1989. Voller said in '95 that certainly the ink was not put on the paper "in recent years." I'm not sure if this means since before '90 (the last five years) or since before '85 (the last ten years) or what, but that is how Voller came back into our discussion.
But I am not sure this is even necessary, as you suggest.
Yaz,
You write:
"Where the frustration over raising Kane lies is in Karoline's other piece of information that does seem to give the Kane/Devereaux association meaning to the 'diary' forgery: an analysis of Kane's handwriting."
Yes, but even this does not give any Kane/Barrett association meaning to the diary 'forgery,' since no Kane/Barrett association yet even exists, even if a Kane/Devereaux association does have meaning for this forgery. Even if Kane wrote the diary and even if he did give it to his friend Tony, there is still no evidence that would suggest that Mike (who ended up with the diary that Tony got from Kane) knew Kane or knew of Kane or knew Kane existed, and therefore there is still no knowledge or association whatsoever established precisely between Kane and Barrett. That's what remains missing in every case. And to suggest that if Kane wrote the diary and Mike eventually owned the diary that Mike must have known Kane or was linked to Kane and therefore had knowledge of or was likely complicit with Kane in this forgery is simply unsound reasoning and the worst sort of guilt by association. Such knowledge and such a link would still need to be established. You know, using evidence and everything. At least one piece of evidence. Somewhere. That's all I'm really saying. But I think you agree with this from reading your post above, Yaz. It's not you making any unsubstantiated and unsound claims about links or associations or complicity that I am worried about, please be assured of that.
Yaz, Please don't misunderstand my "stuff of myth" remark. I completely believe Karoline that the handwriting samples exist. I don't doubt that for one moment. I am however doubting the significance and reliability of this "consensus" that has been allegedly arrived at, according to Karoline, that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
These are Karoline's words and I was just pointing out that any "consensus" (Websters: "an opinion held by all or most") as to this fact was established apparently among a very small group of people and has been offered here without any support at all, as if we are just supposed to accept it and go on. This is silly.
Not only are we for some reason prohibited from seeing the samples that led to this "consensus," we do not even know how many people make up this "consensus" and therefore what it is really worth. Perhaps someone can at least tell us how many people have now contributed to this important "consensus." Three? Four? More than Five? How many? How large of a "consensus" is this, anyway?
This is no way to accuse anyone of anything, Yaz, and you and I know that.
Yet we are told that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
This is what troubles me.
And my "quarrel" with the owners of the samples is not really a quarrel at all, it is just a request that we might all see the samples here as jpgs on this board so we can all participate in the process and have access to the information that is now available.
My "quarrel" with Karoline is different. It is with her simply announced claim in public that:
"the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
Until I know more about this "consensus" and how it was arrived at and who arrived at it and why they arrived at it, for me anyway, any meaningful value or significance that this alleged "consensus" might have does indeed approach the quality of myth.
Hope that clears things up a bit, Yaz.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 10:49 am | | Hi, Yaz:
Where did the idea come from that that you mention that Devereaux's parents owned the diary? As far as I know, there has never been any mention of this possibility.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 10:50 am | | Sitting in the garden in the sunshine engrossed in the faraway world of Chesapeake in 1812 and those damn ex-colonials whooping all hell out of their social superiors, the thought suddenly sprang into my mind that I think Karoline is wrong in two things she said. One, the ink was not “very bronzed” when Alec Voller saw the ‘diary’ in October 1995, but was just beginning to show bronzing. Two, Alec Voller did not base his conclusion that the ink was not recently applied to the paper on the bronzing, but on the blackness and opacity of the ink.
On bronzing he said: “it’s barely visible, in one or two places there is some very slight bronzing [pause] tilted to the light it can just be seen…This tells me again that it is genuinely old. Again this bronzing effect is a chemical process which is not fully understood…You only get very pronounced bronzing where the ink is blue-black. That is to say when the dye is not nigrosine but is in fact ink blue. With a nigrosine base the bronzing is less obvious…”
On the appearance he said: “…what is conclusive is the physical appearance of it [the ink]. If this was Diamine Manuscript Ink or at least if it were Diamine Manuscript Ink of fairly recent manufacture, that is to say of the last twenty or thirty years, it would be blacker and more opaque than this. The opacity of this is very much poorer than one would obtain from Diamine Manuscript Ink.” Later he said: “The fading that occurs is quite characteristic of permanent manuscript inks that are of some considerable age – one does get this effect – they don’t fade evenly – you can get two consecutive lines of writing, one of which remains quite legible and the other fades quite badly. The chemical process that’s involved is not fully understood.”
One may make of this whatever one likes.
Hi John: Yes, if the ink was put on the 'diary' before the stadium disater then Mike's Sphere book could not have provided the Crashaw quote because he did not possess the book. On the other hand, if the blackness and opacity indicate that the ink was put on the paper over six months prior to the 'diary' being taken to Doreen Montgomery, then not only are we possibly able to remove the maroon diary from the "facts" against Mike, but it raises the question of whether Mike actually could have been given the 'diary' mid-1991 or even composed it himself in 1990 (as he claimed in his testimony when under the wing of the private investigator). |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 11:02 am | | Hi Paul,
Ah. I see. Interesting. Very interesting quotes from Voller too. And yes, your post about the timing of all of this does pose some fascinating problems either for the Sphere Guide use or at the very least the maroon diary purchase and for Mike's protected confession as well.
Chris, I think Yaz was just offering a hypothetical to demonstrate the point that just knowing Tony does not make you linked to Mike in any meaningful way. And this remains true even if you did write the diary. At least until someone can offer us one little tiny piece of evidence suggesting that you at least once met Mike or knew he even existed.
I'm out the door and into the sun, too.
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 11:15 am | | Hey John:
I think we are once again in violent agreement on these issues, especially being out of the loop on Kane's handwriting/analysis. But I don't see why Karoline is not also included based on what you quoted in your note of Thursday, May 10, 2001 - 11:58:
"Since that time, a larger example of Kane's writing as well as various additional data has come to light. And this has changed things considerably. I can't comment on that data at this stage since it isn't in the public forum - but the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'.
"Kane of course can be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979."
Karoline uses these terms:
seems
looks very possible
could have
tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux
Based solely on the note you quoted, all statements Karoline made are completely and satisfactorily cautious -- to me -- in not asserting any fact or evidence or accusation of guilt.
She is passing on information...and she proceeds to make very qualified statements over this "consensus."
Even the connection between Kane and the Barrets is fully explained or defined -- at least I find her implied definition acceptable and free of even the suspicion of accusations against the Barretts or even Devereaux. Regarding Kane, she says she "cannot comment on that data at this stage since it isn't in the public forum," but she gives a qualified statement on some "consensus."
Ask for the info to be made public...certainly. But why do we have to hold Karoline responsible for it not being in the "public forum?" She could -- but she is not obligated to -- pass our request on to the owner of the data.
To my knowledge, no one here claims that the Barrets, if they are not the actual forgers, had to know the forgers personally. It is an open question whether the Barretts (or Devereaux) are guilty of anything at all except perhaps gullibility -- but they are just as gullible as the many others who initially or continuously believe the 'diary' to be genuine.
The relevance of association is only to demonstrate how the 'diary' might have passed from an unknown forger, through a possible series of other unknown persons (who may or may not have had knowledge of forgery, or even what they were passing on), to the known person Devereaux (or not, if Mike Barrett has changed his story -- who may or may not have had knowledge of the forgery), to the known persons the Barretts (again and again...who may or may not have had knowledge of the forgery).
Guilt by association is neither expressed or implied in what you quoted from Karoline; nor should it be in anything I suggest, or you suggest, or any of us suggest.
So I think we are all in violent agreement including Karoline.
Yaz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 11:18 am | | Part A
"1) Why would it be thought necessary to link any 'diary' of
Jack the Ripper with a person who is more or less well-known
(both in his own time and down to our own)?"
An "anonymous" diary of JtR wouldn't sell as well as one that enabled someone to easily find the name of the supposed author and thus would give a resolution to the case.
"2) Is this a clue to the forger's weak thought processes in
believing that, like the 'Hitler Diaries,' a forgery is only
valuable or interesting if a well-known person's name is
associated with it?"
No.
"3) Does is tell us that, whatever else he or she or they
might 'know' or have 'learned' about the details of the JtR
crimes -- the forger has little comprehension of perhaps the
most significant issue in the JtR case, namely that no one
knows who JtR was?"
Sorry, I don't understand this. The forger obviously knows that the value of the forgery is in answering that question.
"4) Is the choice of Maybrick a further clue to the naivete
-- why mince words: a clue of plain stupidity -- if
Maybrick's known handwriting exists which would be compared
to the 'diary' to authenticate 'authorship?'"
I think that it's a mistake to assume that just because we are all learned people and know about such things as wills and marriage certificates that the forger necesarily did or indeed even cared. The diary is written in a quasi-Victorian hand somewhat like the theatrical term: "Mummerset" which means an accent designed to sound vaguely rural. The forger was possibly surprised to learn that after the diary handwriting had been exposed as unlike Maybrick's, that several people would bring forward suggestions as to why Maybrick wrote it in a disguised handwriting: he was a junk, had personality disorders, the will was faked etc. etc.
Part B
I think that there would be several other candidates from Liverpool more famous in 1888 than Maybrick.
"1) Is it a clue to the forger's origins and scope of
knowledge (stupidity enters the picture again);"
Probably, yes. A London forger might have picked a different candidate; perhaps Mrs. Pearcy?
"
2) Is it a clue pointing to a more sophisticated thought
process where the forger is acknowledging limitation in his
or her choice of plausible reasons why Jack the Ripper's
'dairy' turns up in Liverpool rather than London or its
environs? What other reasons could there be besides
economic ones for choosing Liverpool? (That is, the forger
cannot afford to move toward or to London, or make
appropriate connections in London, to 'place' the 'diary'
closer to the scene of the alleged 'action.')"
I suspect that the forger lived in Liverpool, was familiar with Maybrick, picked him as being dead in 1889 and thus giving a plausible end to the Whitechapel murders and "placed" the thing in Liverpool simply for convenience. Liverpool is only about 3 hours from London when the trains are running; if the forger had wanted to put the diary in Whitechapel or Camden Town there'd be no problem. Except: Why bother?
"3) Is this another sign of the forger's limited
intellectual capacities -- he or she thinks they know
Liverpool (circa 1888 down to today) better than they ever
would London?"
Why should it be? It's always been my opinion that there's not a great deal of research behind the diary but there's no need to underestimate our forger.
"4) Is Liverpool an outrageous neon-sign from the forger
warning his or her audience that the 'diary' is fake? And
further, that the people most likely to believe in or accept
the 'diary' as genuine would be (simple..very simple?)
people from Liverpool?"
No
"5) Is it a stroke of some kind of forgery-genius to
anticipate the initial doubts that any alleged 'diary' of
JtR would produce? That is, is it Liverpool because
authenticators would be distracted from high-priority
questions about the physical document's authenticity (the
type of book, the missing pages, the ink, etc.) trying to
figure out "Why Liverpool?" or "Why James Maybrick?" --
where both the 'diary' contents and the choices of
historical James Maybrick from Liverpool reinforce one
another to confuse and distract authenticators
(professionals or, perhaps especially, amateurs)?"
Sorry, I'm afraid that this is all unduly complicated. If you happen to live in Liverpool at a time when there has been a fair amount of media publicity concerning the centenary of the Maybrick case and the "retrial" of Florence in St. George's Hall and you happen to get the idea of forging the diary of JtR, (another character who has just had his centenary accompanied by a lot of publicity) then you are faced with a good strong suspect on whom to put the blame.
Incidentally, concerning the whole diary case, there's a very apposite sub-head in this month's Fortean Times: "Any hope of accurate reporting vanishes when believers take over the investigation." |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 11:20 am | | It's been said how lucky the forger was that Maybrick had no alibi for any of the murder nights. On the whole though, the only thing that raised the life of James Maybrick above that of his fellows was the manner of his leaving it. It was only during the trial that accounts emerged about what he might have been doing on specific days and those accounts tend to concentrate on the days in 1889 shortly before his murder.
If the forger thought it worthwhile to check whether James and Florrie were, for example, listed as guests to the Cotton Brokers Ball on the night that Catherine Eddowes was killed, then all that forger would have to do would be to check the local newspaper files for perhaps 6 or 7 individual days: surely not more than an afternoon's work at the local library. And it should be remembered that there were no credit cards and any cheques from the Maybrick bank account that might have shown where he was on a specific day were not in evidence at the trial and therefore have not survived.
But I do have this feeling that if some later researcher had found, in an obscure Cotton-Trade magazine that the Maybrick had had that appointment, then the explanation would be given that maybe they had been invited and hadn't turned up or if they actually had gone to the Ball, that there was no proof that James hadn't nipped out and got the late train to London in time for his appointment with Catherine. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 11:24 am | | RJ: You're right. The contemorary handwriting of MB and AG has not been compared to the diary by an expert.
"1) In England, to find even birth and death certificates
and the like, are you required to leave a signature before
you can examine documents?"
To apply for a copy of such a certificate you need to fill in a form whether you get it at a local registry office or at the GRO, London. These forms are considered confidential and are not public records. By now, most of them for the 1990's will have been destroyed.
"2) Are you also asked to prove your identity by showing a
driver's license or something?"
No.
And I really do not think that our forger would have needed or bothered to look at numbers of certificates. There is nothing in the whole Diary that needed that sort of research.
Re: Devereaux' will: it has been previously put on these boards in its entirety.
Regarding the persons who saw the diary when MB took it to town: "Fascinating," said Robert Smith the Museum's curator of 19thC mss. "Quite extraordinary. It looks authentic. But you'll have to take it to a document examiner. We don't have forensic facilities here."
So it LOOKED authentic but as far as Mr. Smith was concerned it needed to be examined forensically.
Brian Lake from Jarndyce "a specialist in 19thC literature" sais: "It looks exciting...but find a forensic scientist to settle its precise date."
Which agrees with Mr. Smith: it needs an expert and neither of them were willing to say: "This is a genuine 19thC work." They just gave an opinion after a few minutes looking at it. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 11:37 am | | Hi Peter
I cited my sources for the statements by Messrs Smith and Lake, namely letters from them both. Could you cite yours? But the point is that whilst one would expect both men to recommend forensic examination, neither man, no matter how cursory their examination, perceived anything that immediately struck them as marking the document down as of recent composition, such as no bronzing or anything of that kind. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 12:15 pm | | Hi, Paul:
Glad you are enjoying my book on the War of 1812 in the Chesapeake and that it is bright and sunny where you are. It is stinking hot here, due to go up to 88 degrees Fahrenheit and I am running up and downstairs doing laundry. We have no elevator in our apartment building and no air conditioning on the stairs.
You may have caught the British statement in my book about the "low cunning" of the Americans. Makes you wonder if JtR could have been a Yank, eh? Of course, the British attitudes and the comportment of the colonials were similar in all colonial cultures, e.g., colonial America and Ireland. Do I hear a vote for Dr. Tumblety?
By the way, I think Maybrick was rather a brilliant choice because choosing a person who was involved in a sensational internationally known murder case you already have a cachet of a cause celebre, and the conjunction of America and England in the marriage. Possibly as he scribbled the entries in the Diary our forger was already dreaming of book publication and Hollywood?
All the best
Chris
P.S. Paul, I guarantee that it won't get this hot when you are here in Baltimore for the April 2002 JtR convention at BWI Airport Comfort Inn! |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 12:54 pm | | Hi Yaz,
If you think that by pointing out that Kane was tied-in to Mike Barrett through Tony Devereaux, after suggesting that there seems to be a consensus that it is now very possible that Kane wrote the diary, that Karoline was not in any way suggesting that therefore it is now more likely that Kane wrote this thing than it was before and that Mike likely was complicit in this forgery or that he knew about the book's origins, and that this is all evidence that he knew about these origins, then fine. I accept that reading of yours and agree that it is not a problem.
However, if you think, based on the discussion that we have been engaged in here for the last month or two, that Karoline was telling us that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'" and then telling us that Kane was "tied in" to Barrett through his friendship with Tony (which is not, by the way any meaningful tie-in whatsoever, as you yourself have pointed out), that Karoline was not in any way suggesting that therefore Kane is now more likely to have written this and that Mike was likely to have known about the forgery and even to have been complicit in it -- if you do not believe she was suggesting this, then although I might agree that this reading would not be a problem in such a case, I must say that I would not agree with your conclusion that Karoline was not suggesting this.
I think she was suggesting that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'" and that Mike is linked to Kane through Tony (which remember is not a meaningful link at all in and of itself) and that therefore Kane is now more likely to have written the diary and Mike is likely to have been complicit in this forgery and to have known of this book's origins.
And besides, even with all of her "seems" and "very possible" qualifiers, the key word in this sentence, Yaz, is "now."
Look again:
"I can't comment on that data at this stage since it isn't in the public forum - but the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
The only way this "now" makes any sense at all is if it didn't seem quite as possible before and now it seems clearly more possible. This, Yaz, is an accusation, I think. Kane's is "now" more likely to have written this "diary" than we thought he was before. This is what this "now" implies, clearly. And this is troublesome until I see the make-up of this "consensus," at least.
Again, who was in this "consensus?" How many people? How legitimate is it? What does it mean?
And by the way, Yaz, if you "can't comment on the data because it is not in the public forum," then why even bother to announce that "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'" in the first place.
Unless, of course, you are suggesting that although you can't comment on it, the data suggests that Kane is now more likely to have written this than he was up until "now."
Do you see the problem here?
If you can't comment on it, then why assert even that "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?"
And then why immediately thereafter announce that Mike is "tied-in" to Kane through Tony?
What would be the point of simply announcing this without comment if you were not suggesting something about Kane as the "now" more likely forger (an accusation) and about Mike as therefore more likely to be complicit (another accusation)?
These accusations would be unevidenced and unsupported and irresponsible, of course.
And Kane is actually not linked to Mike in any meaningful way whatsoever, so mentioning that he knew Tony tells us nothing at all significant unless you are implying that this also means he knew Kane and therefore was likely to be complicit (which is in fact what Karoline has been explicitly claiming all along, in precisely this less than careful and unevidenced way).
That is what troubles me , Yaz.
I cheerfully accept that
1.) if all Karoline meant by telling us that "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'." was that this is what some people think but we have no idea how many or why, so this tells us nothing at all, really.
and
2.) all she meant by telling us that "Kane of course can be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979." was that Mike knew Tony and so did Kane but we cannot conclude anything at all from this since there is no evidence at all that Mike or Kane even knew each other existed or ever even met and therefore the tie-in remains completely insignificant.
Then yes, Yaz, I agree that if that is all she meant, I have no quarrel with what she has written.
Unfortunately, I do not think that that is what she she meant by either of those things.
I think that she meant that it now seems even more possible and likely that Kane wrote this diary than it did before, based on a new consensus regarding new samples.
And I think that she meant that Kane is linked through Tony to Mike and this link is somehow significant and meaningful and therefore this somehow increases the likelihood of Mike's knowledge and complicity as well.
I think this is what she meant.
There are clearly a great number of associated posts in this discussion to indicate strongly that this is what she meant, as well as her use of the word "now" in the Kane sentence and the particular choice of the phrase "tied-in" in the Mike and Kane sentence.
Yes, I think that she meant that it now seems even more possible and likely that Kane wrote this diary than it did before, based on a new consensus regarding new samples.
And I think that she meant that Kane is linked through Tony to Mike and this link is somehow significant and meaningful (or else why even bother to assert it) and therefore this somehow increases the likelihood of Mike's knowledge and complicity as well.
And I think both of these assertions amount to unwarranted and irresponsible accusations at this time.
If she meant strictly what you suggest, I am happy and pleased to agree with everyone right now that all we can say is that a few people have seen these samples and think they might be significant, but we can't see them or know how many people have decided this, so we know absolutely nothing and can know absolutely nothing; and that Mike and Kane may have both known Tony but there is no evidence and therefore no reason at all to think that Mike knew, met, or knew of Kane and therefore the two men are not yet tied in with each other in any meaningful or significant way whatosever.
Yes, I will agree to that. I do not think, Yaz, that Karoline will. Nor do I think this is what she was saying at all.
Just a reading of mine, but I do believe that it has some textual support elsewhere.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 01:04 pm | | Hi Peter,
Since you are here...
Any chance of us all seeing the Kane handwriting samples as jpgs here on the boards?
Any chance of letting Caz pay to have an independent and objective handwriting expert look at them? She has offered.
Oh, and above you cite these words:
"Any hope of accurate reporting vanishes when believers take over the investigation."
Peter, I completely and utterly and 100% agree.
This is a very good point.
Now, who believes what?
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 01:47 pm | | Hi All,
Robert Smith, in his recent post to this board, quoted what Dr Eastaugh had to say in 1992, after analysing the diary ink:
‘Research suggests that solubility allows us to follow ink as it dries for a period of perhaps about three to five years… [my emphasis] During the tests conducted on the diary, it was clear that the solubility of the ink was similar to the Victorian reference material and unlike the modern inks dried out for reference, but we still cannot properly distinguish on this basis whether the ink is Victorian, because after a few years [my emphasis], we could not adequately differentiate inks of quite dissimilar age anyway.”
Robert added:
In other words, if Mike Barrett or friends had applied ink to the paper after 1987 to 1989, Dr Eastaugh would have been able to reveal the diary as a fake.
Dr Eastaugh is stating quite unequivocally here that the reason he cannot be more definite about whether the ink is Victorian or not is because it has already been on the paper for ‘a few years’ - ie the period (‘about three to five years’), during which he could have followed the ink as it dried, has now lapsed. Therefore, had the diary been penned at any time more recently than three years before his October 1992 analysis – ie October 1989 at the very latest, he would definitely have smelled something very fishy indeed.
Now, I believe RJ is going to buy us all a curry in Brick Lane if Mike’s Sphere vol.2 wasn’t used for the forgery. (Incidentally, I don’t know what evidence, if any, has been found to support Mike having owned this book from 1989, as a result of the Hillsborough Fund donation. But I think it has been accepted as more than possible, considering he volunteered this information to Shirley, at a time when he was definitely not suggesting to her that he had used his Sphere to forge the diary, and his then girlfriend supported his story about taking the set of volumes round to her son, in case they were of use to him in his studies.) So, if RJ concedes that Dr Eastaugh knew what he was talking about, he must also concede that the diary was written into the scrapbook at some point between April and October 1989. And if, as Paul Begg has touched upon, the forger(s) were unaware that the diary would need to be left to dry for at least three years, RJ would need to explore why Mike didn’t take the finished product to London as soon as possible to reap his financial rewards. But, conversely, if he knew he had to wait that long, what was he doing taking delivery of a potentially preferable vehicle (yes, that maroon diary/herring) in late March 1992, when he was due in London with his creation in not much more than a fortnight? Was Mike really still so wet behind the ears that he was planning to con everyone with a diary still wet behind its cover?
The maroon diary is fishy whichever way you look at it. But the more I look, the more I smell herring. And one has to ask again: why would anyone, trying to place in 1992, a knowingly forged document created three years previously, try to get hold of a genuine Victorian diary, and leave all the evidence of the order and purchase to be traced back?
Karoline,
You wrote:
1.When the diary was first examined in 1992, the ink showed absolutely no sign of bronzing anywhere in its sixty-plus pages.
Could you give us a source for this information please? Was it Dr Eastaugh, who examined it in October 1992? Or Robert Smith perhaps? Or someone else? Thanks.
2.By October 1995 it was showing noticeable signs of bronzing. I believe this has continued to progress to the present time.
On what do you base your belief that the bronzing of the diary ink has continued to progress to the present time? Who has seen and monitored the diary’s progress and led you to hold such a belief?
In October 1995, Alec Voller had to take the diary to the window and tilt it to the light to see ‘some very slight bronzing’ in one or two places. Yet he announced that the bronzing effects he did notice told him ‘that it is genuinely old’.
So, basically, what is your evidence that there were no signs of bronzing in 1992, but that by 1995 the signs were noticeable and have progressed ever since?
Nigrosine was patented back in 1867 and became widely used in inks, so I’m not sure why you see a contradiction in Voller’s opinion that the diary ink contains nigrosine, but is not Diamine. And I have been asking for quite some time exactly the same question as John now asks: has Voller ever conceded that he could have been mistaken about the diary ink not being Diamine? Melvin never gave me a straight answer either, so I doubt John will fare any better. Perhaps RJ will prove more helpful. But I do wonder how useful it is for you to assume one of Voller's conclusions is correct, then use it to say another must be wrong. It would be good if Voller himself could give us some clarification, and iron out your perceived contradiction, before we start leaping to our own preferred conclusions again. This is what I think Yaz means by wanting to keep all possible future bias out of the science, which may already be riddled with it.
On the handwriting front, I’ve not yet heard from anyone regarding my offer to fund the analysis of Kane’s larger sample. Meanwhile, would it be a good idea to gather people’s opinions on what the brief for Sue Iremonger (if we can get her) should be? For example, perhaps we could get Anne, Mike and Tony D’s writing compared with the diary at the same time, as part of a job lot (which might prove more economical in the long run). If the cost remains in the region of Robert’s ‘few hundred’ estimate, I am more than happy to have others agree the details between them, and perhaps ask Robert, if he is willing, to draw up some sort of agreement, by which I pay for the analyses, and the results are made available to predetermined parties.
Any thoughts?
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 01:58 pm | | Hi, John and Peter:
I second John's agreement with the statement that Peter posted from this month's Fortean Times:
"Any hope of accurate reporting vanishes when believers take over the investigation."
In addition to following the ins and outs of the investigation into the Maybrick Diary, I have had a passing interest into the investigation into the Shroud of Turin. It would seem that recently "believers" have taken over that investigation pronouncing the shroud genuine when it was all but concluded by most experts that the shroud had to be a Medieval "relic." I have also read one book where the writer was making a case that Leonardo da Vinci made the shroud as an early experiment in photography, the image of the man on the shroud, whether Christ or not, being akin to the type of image seen in a photographic negative. Whether valid or not the believers' views can sway the public into thinking a fake artifact might be real.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 02:04 pm | | Hey John:
You think Karoline was doing everything you suggested.
I think Karoline was doing everything I suggested.
You choose what you think she said and therefore emphasize how she would be wrong to think this way, and you explain why you think what you do.
I think, whatever your past disagreements, you are purposely choosing what to emphasize, what to either ignore or de-emphasize, and speculating on Karoline's intent for all of this. You are holding her responsible for your interpretation (perhaps even a mistaken interpretation).
I'm being called away for non-Casebook business but I just want to say I want no part of picking fights that are unnecessary and, in my opinion and in this case, unwarranted.
----
Peter:
Your answers...
Terse. To the point. So where there is no need for debate, the questions are all settled?
My response...
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him think...er, drink.
----------------
No mas for me.
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
