|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 12, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 12, 2001
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 02:32 pm |        | Yazoo,
Thanks for your very reasonable comments re: the Kane business.
I completely agree that his handwriting cannot be adduced as evidence until a proper sample is in the public arena (I thought I made this clear to John and others in my original posting on the subject).
I have already suggested to the relevant person that the sample should be posted on these boards or otherwise published somewhere - and I'm happy to pass on your request to the same effect.
In passing - I also entirely agree with you about the need to get back to the basic data about the forensic tests done on the diary, and I hope to be able to contribute a little towards that soon
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 02:37 pm | | Paul--Hello. Sorry about the wafting the curry scents your direction. But say, it seems like it wasn't that long ago that you were warning me against taking the expert opionion of Audrey Giles & the others commissioned by the Sunday Times too seriously because they didn't have much time to study the Maybrick diary. Can't the same be said about those from Jarndyce & the British Museum? As Shirley Harrison has described them (I think that is what Peter is quoting) these were impromptu judgements, weren't they? From what I've read, the bottom line seems to be that it is nearly impossible to determine how long iron gall inks have been on paper after a few years have passed. Since the diary's paper is unsized, it would probably make this even more true in this specific case.
As for the diary being closer to 'shoddy' than 'sophisticated'... I would suggest: 'Post House'; 'tin match box empty'; MJK's breasts on the table (probably culled from Underwood); Michael Maybrick writing lyrics; and a few other flubs that die-hard forger (like Mark Hoffman) wouldn't have ever made. Even if you don't buy McCormick's "Eight Little Whores", a sophisticated forger wouldn't use anything that might suggest a dubious source. So technically, it might be a little shoddy--however-- I think it is a very competent forgery from the standpoint of marketing. It's a good storyline, solves not one, but two Victorian murder mysteries (the suggestion in the last entry of Florie poisoning James after his confession gives the whole thing a 'shock' ending) and leaves enough puzzles that it almost demands someone to write a commentary on it. Clever from that standpoint, I think, which suggest to me that the motive was probably writing a 'bestseller' & not to 'fool the experts'. All in my humble opionion, of course. Voller's opionion is impressive, one of the crowning feathers in Shirley Harrison's book. But it doesn't look to me like it agrees with the chemical evidence.
John--Just for the record, the Sphere book came out in 1986. There was an earlier edition in 1971. Question for you: do you think Dr. Baxendale was mistaken when he said the diary's ink 'gave up color while he watched'? Or is he blind? Review the various reports and see if you don't think Diamine is a pretty solid guess. I haven't any idea where you are going with your speculations that research might have given an alibi for Maybrick. What is your point (please explain)? This is a forgery that used some pretty risky Ripper info and made a few flubs, so it seems like a strange comment. Besides--Peter is right. Alibis are hard to come by after 100+ years. I think Neill Cream & Eddy have iron-tight alibis, and Druitt a partial--there aren't many others. The forgers were pretty safe. Sounds almost like a Feldian argument, to use your lingo. They of course DID pick Maybrick, and his handwriting didn't match, etc. Or is your point that this was a clumsy hoax or a joke?
Peter--good posts.
Best wishes, RJP
Finally, I leave you with this puzzle: Tony D had Mike's copy of REW's book with the Maybrick information, and he (Tony) at one point loaned it to one of his daughters, telling her it belonged to Mike. It seems likely that Tony knew something about the Maybrick diary, even if only that his friend Mike was researching it. That it went as far as Tony actually having Mike's REW book might well suggest that this extended as far as Tony taking a friendly interest in Mike researching the diary. Ahem. But in the Sunday Times interviews, Tony D's daughters denied that Tony had any knowledge of the Diary--and were insulted that the Barrett's used their father as a provenance. Wouldn't it have been natural for Tony to mention his friend's diary to his daughter when she borrowed REW's book? Was it Tony's daughter that later made this connection when she remembered borrowing Mike's REW book? Does the apparent fact that Tony didn't mention the Maybrick diary to his daughter suggest anything? What does this do to Paul's suggestion that Mike feared Devereux's family would take the diary away from him? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 02:42 pm | | | Caz--If I conceded Eastaugh knew what he was talking about, you would have to concede that Baxendale was mistaken or blind. No curry yet. Sorry. RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 02:57 pm | | Hi Yaz,
I'm afraid it's not that simple. Karoline writes that "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
A word like "now," used in this way, really does suggest that something has changed.
And, besides, I have a serious and established body of written texts to support my reading of what I think Karoline was suggesting. She has suggested it elsewhere and repeatedly and the texts remain and stand as evidence of this.
I am definitely not holding her responsible for my interpretation of her words. I am interpreting her words based on what she has written and what she has written repeatedly concerning precisely these issues.
And again, Yaz, I did say the following, just to be fair:
"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.) if 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."
And I did later say, to be fair, that:
"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 whatsoever.
"Yes, I will agree to that."
I will agree that these facts tell us nothing at all about Mike's role in this forgery or about Mike's knowledge of Kane or about the likelihood of Kane being the penman. Nothing at all. I will happily agree to that.
"I do not think, Yaz, that Karoline will."
I do not think she will, because I have read her words on this subject repeatedly and she has never agreed to this.
But if you still think this is what she was saying, then I am perfectly happy to let your reading stand as a possible one.
Indeed, I only hope, really, seriously hope, that this is all she was saying.
It would make me very happy, Yaz. Honest. It would.
Caz,
Are the following things true?
1. That the ink, according to Dr. Easthaugh, could not have been applied to the paper before October, 1989, three years before he saw it in 1992.
2. That the Sphere volume could not have come to the Barretts before April, 1989.
3. That Mike ordered the maroon diary giving his own real name and home address in 1992.
4. That Mike Barrett took the scrapbook diary written before 1989 to Doreen's in April 1992, only a few weeks after ordering the maroon diary?
5. That Mike Barrett arranged to meet Doreen with the diary, and he arranged this two weeks before he received the maroon diary?
I wonder what the most likely scenario for Mike Barrett's role in this forgery really is?
Peter, any word on getting that writing analyzed by an expert, if Caroline pays?
How about the chance of the samples appearing here on this friendly, little board of ours?
And since we're quoting, everyone:
Dorothy Parker, when asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence, quickly replied:
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
--John
"Wasn't the Yale Prom wonderful? If all the girls in attendance were laid end to end, I wouldn't be at all surprised." D.P. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 03:01 pm | | Caz--Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Keith just recently make a post stating that the maroon diary was only traceable with Anne's help? That the original checks didn't even exist? Are you (and John) correct in insisting that it was easily traceable?
I don't know if Robert Smith is still following the boards, but it would be interesting if he could field some of the questions that were being asked a few months back. [It would be understandable if he felt that these were not fit for public consumption] Is Smith the current owner of the Maybrick diary, or does Mike still retain ownership? Are Mike & Anne still under the contractual agreement that would require them to pay back diary procedes if the Maybrick diary was proven a forgery? Did Mr. Johnson pay for the testing of the watch, or was he reimbursed?
Best wishes, RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 03:17 pm | | RJ,
I notice you did not cite for me where Voller, Diamine's chemist, has agreed that the ink was Diamine.
Could you let me know where he agreed to this? Thanks.
Was Easthaugh wrong then? Or are you saying, as I have been, that we simply have conflicting results?
And all I was saying about the dates of the murders was that if I was writing a book that said that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, and I knew Maybrick was a businessman and a member of society and that he traveled and attended various sorts of events where there might be a record of his comings and goings, I would want to research and see if any of these records might simply disqualify him from being the Ripper, especially seeing as how Maybrick was already something of a known and researched commodity, unlike several other Ripper suspects. You told me I could not have found this information in Ryan's book. That means I would have had to look for it elsewhere and that therefore all the Maybrick info I needed would not have been available from one or two books. This seems clear enough.
RJ: Do you have any evidence at all that even suggests that the Sphere volume was in the Barrett's possession before 1989?
Once again, I was just wondering.
Karoline,
You are not seriously suggesting that what I have written to Yaz in the post above:
"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 whatsoever."
was all you meant to imply in your "consensus" post, are you? This is what you were saying and are "now" saying about the Kane handwriting and Mike's connection or lack of connection to Kane?
You were not in any way suggesting that it is "now very possible" that Kane wrote this diary or that Mike was connected to Kane (somehow, through Tony) and therefore Mike was probably complicit. You are no longer suggesting this "now," in light of the new "consensus" and in light of Mike and Kane both knowing Tony? You are not suggesting anything about this at all anymore? Really?
Excellent. I am pleased.
But just to be sure... I wrote to Yaz,
"I will agree that these facts tell us nothing at all about Mike's role in this forgery or about Mike's knowledge of Kane or about the likelihood of Kane being the penman. Nothing at all. I will happily agree to that.
I do not think, Yaz, that Karoline will."
Will you?
I hope so.
By the way, since you are here, how many people made up this so-called "consensus" anyway?
Don't we have a right to know?
Finally you write:
"I have already suggested to the relevant person that the sample should be posted on these boards or otherwise published somewhere - and I'm happy to pass on your request to the same effect."
Thank you for this. This is a good thing.
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 03:33 pm | | Caz,
you asked me for my sources for the timeline on the age-bronzing of the diary ink - here they are-
In July 1992 Dr. David Baxendale examined the diary minutely using a Zeiss bino microscope. He was able to find no trace of age-bronzing whatever.
In August 1993 the Rendell team examined the diary and one of the things they looked for was age-bronzing. They also found none.
In December 1994 Nick Warren saw the diary. He also found no trace of age-bronzing.
October 30 1995, Voller saw the diary and detected age-bronzing that he believed showed the diary was "at least 90 years old".
He was apparently unaware of the fact that his own Diamine MS ink has been shown to age-bronze in three years.
Re: the question of whether the diary-ink is Diamine ink:
The diary ink is an iron gall ink with nigrosine as a sighting agent.
Diamine MS ink is an iron gall ink with nigrosine as a sighting agent.
Nigrosine was used in old inks of the 19thC. But I am told that no other company but Diamine has been traced as users of nigrosine in the 1990s (I am always open to correction here).
If this is true, then, assuming the diary is a modern forgery dating from the late 1980s or early 1990s, (and the complete absence of age-bronzing before 1995 makes it very unlikely it is much older than that) then the only source of that ink can have been Diamine.
Re: the opacity of the ink
In contrast to Voller's claim that the diary-ink was too watery to be Diamine ink, we have the observations of several people that Diamine MS ink was indeed very watery.
Nick Warren commented on Diamine ink:
"the effect is very watery, astonishingly so at first"
I hope this makes a few things clearer
K |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 03:47 pm | | Karoline,
No answers about the "consensus" that decided that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'" and who was in this consensus or how many there were at least?
Why can't we know this?
No answers about whether you agree or not that the new samples of Kane's handwriting and the fact that both Kane and Mike knew Tony -- that neither of these things tells us anything at all about Mike's role in this forgery or about Mike's knowledge of Kane or about the real likelihood of Kane being the penman. Nothing at all.
No answers about whether you agree with this, as Yaz was suggesting you might and I was suggesting you might not?
As I said, I hope I am wrong. I hope Yaz is right and you were only saying this and you agree with this.
Well, thanks anyway,
--John
PS: I take it from your post to Caz, that Alec Voller, Diamine's chemist, has not in fact agreed that this ink was Diamine. Right? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 04:02 pm | | John-- You wrote: "I would want to research and see if any of these records might simply disqualify him from being the Ripper, especially seeing as how Maybrick was already something of a known and researched commodity, unlike several other Ripper suspects. You told me I could not have found this information in Ryan's book. That means I would have had to look for it elsewhere and that therefore all the Maybrick info I needed would not have been available from one or two books. This seems clear enough."
Sorry, but it is still not clear what you are saying. All the Maybrick information as far as I can tell IS available in one or two books (Ryan's & Morland's) Are you suggesting that there is some indication or evidence that the forgers would have had to do massive research just in order to makes sure Maybrick whereabouts weren't mentioned anywhere else? Why assume this? The authors make dumb mistakes on other points, so why assume they would carefully research this one point? I still think you are overestimating the amount of information available on Maybrick's whereabouts; as Peter pointed out, Sir Jim drew no public interest until he was a corpse. Ryan gives some detail; for instance, Maybrick did visit London from time to time in 1888. But, I ask, how careful were the forgers? There has been no evidence presented that Maybrick knew Florie had any lovers until after the Ripper murders had ended, which would, of course, make the entire diary an anachronism. Excuse me for asking, but are you moving towards thinking this thing is an old, possibly genuine document?
I'm not sure I agree with Caz's interpretaton of Eastaugh, I'll have to review my information.
I only have heresay evidence that the Sphere was in Mike's possession. Mr. Smith recently posted suggesting he believes Mike's original story, so I assume he believes Mike had a copy. Mr. Smith also went on to claim the difficulty in finding a copy of this book, though we know that Mike produced a copy of it and that Melvin Harris is in possession of this. Melvin has claimed that Mike had this copy before the diary was brought to London, and that Mike's relatives confirmed he had a copy. It has been stated that Anne does not deny that Mike owned a copy. Alan Gray also said that Mike had a copy. [And I can still see NO logical way Mike could have come up with the quote unless he DID have a copy; what I'am seeing so far suggests the Sphere book in the Liverpool Library was in the repository]. So this is what I assume. If you, Caz, Shirley, Keith, Anne or anyone else can show me otherwise, I am more than willing to change my mind.
Best wishes, RJP |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 04:06 pm | | John:
I admit my fault in letting Peter's apparent contempt for this whole process, as shown in both the brevity of his responses and the lack of almost any thought offered for why he answered as he did, get the better of me. One good thing you could say about Peter, he is a man who knows his own mind. It is also his own misfortune because that seems all he cares to know.
But I expected more from you. The past is gone, John; will you never let it go to see where you and Karoline might actually agree on something?
And, worse, if you notice any agreement, the tone if not the wording behind your post to her expresses mock (God forbid it be honest!) incredulity. This miracle must be explained! She has somehow changed her mind; she is saying something different than what you thought she was saying before.
Is there always no other alternative -- one in which this time you perhaps misinterpeted her post?
Can we have a productive discussion if the past keeps interferes with the present; if we do not allow for changes of mind, or an admission that what we thought someone said or meant is not, in fact, what they said or meant?
And which is more productive:
1) Allowing for change in ourselves or in others?
2) Or taking every advantage to hurt, whether the opening exists or not, exactly as you have felt hurt in the past?
Peter is what Peter shows us, time after time, post after post...since my previous visit to the Casebook unto this very day. As I do with only a few others on these boards, from this point on, Peter, I will try to courteously acknowledge your presence amongst us...but little more. I will expend as much effort on you as you expend in propogating the "Peter Principle" of forgery investigation...or any other matter that stands beneath the beetled brow of his...wit.
John, I wish you could see how you're behavior now -- now, in this present -- as I see it...maybe as others see it (Peter would doubtless applaud your wit and craft, but I hope he is in the minority).
This one time, John, I think you are misunderstanding Karoline and causing harm where none need exist. If you would step back from tensions of the past maybe you would see it.
If you could do this then I would gladly join with you in saying:
"Excellent. I am pleased."
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 04:26 pm | | Hi Yaz,
Fair enough. If Karoline confirms what you say, and if she agrees that we can say nothing at all about any increased likelihood of Mr. Kane being the penman from the samples or anything at all about Mike knowing Kane or being in any meaningful way connected to Kane or about Mike's likely complicity from any of this, then I will be delighted to agree that we share this at least.
This is an honest offer, without malice or sarcasm. If she agrees, I agree.
I hope that is fair, since that is the reading you are suggesting is possible.
Perhaps you are right, Yaz.
I will agree then, to this, if she is willing to as well. Absolutely.
Thanks for the advice, seriously. I want to be fair.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 04:28 pm | | Hi RJ,
Very quickly, because I must head out the door.
1.) No, I am definitely not moving towards suggesting that this is an old document at all. I am suggesting that a recent forger would have had to be sure at the very least that Maybrick wasn't simply disqualified from even being the Ripper because he was known to be somewhere else when the murders took place. This is not a sophisticated assumption. It's a necessary one. I do not think, given what you have told me, that I could have determined this from the book or two you cite, so I would have had to do other research. Therefore, all the Maybrick information I need to write this diary was clearly not available in one or two books. That's all.
2.) I'll wait to see if you think Easthaugh then must have been mistaken about the ink not possibly being applied after October of 1989.
3.) You did not answer my question. I asked you if you have any evidence whatsoever that Mike owned the Sphere volume before April of 1989 (the date of the soccer disaster). That's what I was wondering.
Gotta' run.
I do wish someone would tell me how many people were in the "consensus" that decided that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary.'"
What was the total number? And again, why can't we know this?
I also wish we could all see those samples here.
It is a time for wishing, I suppose.
Bye all,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 04:59 pm | | Hi RJ,
You wrote:
‘If I conceded Eastaugh knew what he was talking about, you would have to concede that Baxendale was mistaken or blind.’
I don’t know enough about the science to concede anything about which of the experts is right or wrong. So I’m afraid I won’t be conceding anything about Baxendale either. I wasn’t saying you had to concede that Eastaugh knew what he was talking about and that Baxendale didn’t – I said if you concede the former…. which you have now confirmed you don’t, and I understand, since this would conflict with your firmly-held beliefs about the diary.
You also wrote:
‘Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Keith just recently make a post stating that the maroon diary was only traceable with Anne's help? That the original checks didn't even exist? Are you (and John) correct in insisting that it was easily traceable?’
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. As soon as Anne was asked about the maroon diary, in 1995, she set about gathering all the evidence Keith needed to trace the order and purchase. The fact remains that when Mike ordered it in March 1992, he made no attempt to make the order untraceable, did he? And do you still think that, had the maroon diary proved suitable when it arrived at the end of March, Mike would have used it for the Maybrick Diary and presented it to Doreen on April 13th?
Hi John,
1. The ink, according to Dr Eastaugh, could not have been applied to the paper after October 1989, otherwise he could have ‘followed the ink’, which would still have been drying on the page by October 1992.
2. The Sphere volume could have come to the Barretts, I guess, at any time after it was published (1986?). I don’t know if anyone has been able to confirm Mike’s story that it arrived after April 15th 1989, as a result of the Hillsborough disaster.
3. Yes, I think Keith and Shirley confirmed, in their post of July 1999, that Mike ordered the maroon diary giving his own real name and home address in 1992.
4. Yes, Mike Barrett did take the scrapbook diary - which, according to Dr Eastaugh, must have been written before October 1989 (see 1. above) - to Doreen in April 1992, only a few weeks after ordering the maroon diary.
5. Yes, Mike Barrett did arrange to meet Doreen with the diary, and he arranged this two weeks before he received the maroon diary.
Hi Karoline,
Thanks for the fast response. You wrote:
‘In December 1994 Nick Warren saw the diary. He also found no trace of age-bronzing.’
‘October 30 1995, Voller saw the diary and detected age-bronzing that he believed showed the diary was "at least 90 years old".’
‘He was apparently unaware of the fact that his own Diamine MS ink has been shown to age-bronze in three years.’
So, what exactly are you saying here? If the ink showed no trace of age-bronzing in December 1994, but ten months later, by October 1995, age-bronzing was detectable, does that mean that the diary was probably penned after December 1991? I’m getting a tad confused here.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 11 May 2001 - 11:56 pm | | We have been told that someone has samples of Kane's handwriting and that some people think this handwriting matches that of the diary.
We have gone off making a whole lot of assumptions about this handwriting sample and made statements about what is being said or what can be said about this sample. I don't think we're all making the same assumptions. I don't think we all have the same understanding of what everyone is saying.
Let's go real slow and see if we can agree on a few basics, based on the information that someone has a sample of handwriting...period:
We need to know if there actually are any samples of anybody's handwriting.
We need to know, from an expert in handwriting analysis -- for whose services Caz has offered to pay:
If the samples are actually Kane's handwriting.
If the sample is large enough to determine whether the handwriting sample matches the 'diary's' handwriting.
That the analyst has determined that the 'diary' could not have been written by any other person except the person whose handwriting the analyst compared against the 'diary's' handwriting.
If the owners of the sample will not make the sample available for analysis, we need to know if the current owners of the handwriting sample have done the following:
Hired their own handwriting analyst whom everyone would recognize as an impartial authority in that field.
That the analyst has determined the sample is from Kane.
That the analyst has determined the sample is large enough to determine whether the handwriting sample matches the 'diary's' handwriting.
That the analyst has determined that the 'diary' could not have been written by any other person except the person whose handwriting the analyst compared against the 'diary's' handwriting.
If -- and this is a big if -- these conditions have been satisfactorily met...
Does everyone agree that handwriting analysis alone provides a satisfactory test to determine who physically wrote the diary -- in other words, to determine who scratched those letters onto the 'diary's' pages? Nothing more; and nothing less.
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 02:47 am | | Hi RJP: “it seems like it wasn't that long ago that you were warning me against taking the expert opionion of Audrey Giles & the others commissioned by the Sunday Times too seriously because they didn't have much time to study the Maybrick diary. Can't the same be said about those from Jarndyce & the British Museum?”
Of course it can and it would be very wise to do so. But the fact remains that they did not look at the ‘diary’ and say ‘oh, no bronzing; that make’s it recent’ or ‘that handwriting looks too modern’ or something like that, and they were prepared, in written testimony, to state that they saw nothing inconsistent with a late-Victorian production. The thing is that although much has been made of the absence of bronzing, neither expert seemed to think this was significant. So is bronzing really that significant an issue?
“From what I've read, the bottom line seems to be that it is nearly impossible to determine how long iron gall inks have been on paper after a few years have passed.”
Which was rather the point I was making really. When was the ink put on the paper? So, did the appearance of the ink look like it had been put on the paper a week ago or three or four or twenty years ago?
Again, I terms o competency, I was thinking more in terms of the physical execution of the forgery; things like knowing that Victorian handwriting was different to handwriting in the second half of the 20th century, knowing how it differed, and taking steps to copy Victorian handwriting (as Audrey Giles seems to have suggested – on whose comments, does anyone have any ideas about her seeing nervousness in the handwriting?)
To your question about Tony Devereux’s daughters, I’m not sure I understand what you are asking, but Mike wouldn’t know what they knew about the ‘diary’ would he? He would therefore assume they knew about it and act accordingly.
Tony Devereux possessed Mike Barrett’s RWE book. This was (a) pure coincidence, (b) because Mike was using it to research material for the forgery, (c) because Mike was using it to research the ‘diary’ that already existed. Tony Devereux may not have mentioned the ‘diary’ to his daughter because (a) he didn’t know about it, (b) didn’t understand or care about Bongo’s grand forgery scheme and couldn’t be bothered to talk about it, (c) had been asked not to talk about it, (d) simply didn’t think it was important, (e) there wasn’t time or opportunity to explain why he had Mike’s book, (f) had been sworn to secrecy about the book by whoever had given it to him, (g) was implicated in the forgery scheme and didn’t want his daughters to know about it. I could probably think of more reasons. |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 04:04 am | | "So is bronzing really that significant an issue?"
Yes it is.
It would be next to impossible for a document of significant age that was written in iron-gall ink to exhibit no age-bronzing whatsoever.
The extent of the bronzing might vary considerably, but inevitably there would be a detectable amount.
Yet,as has been shown here, in 1992 the diary-ink displayed absolutely no signs of age-bronzing even under microscopic analysis.
So, even though, as RJ has observed, one cannot actually date the ink itself, the complete absence of bronzing in '92 means it is virtually impossible for it to be significantly old.
The Jarndyce/ BM question that keeps being raised is really a red herring.
These people were not engaging a proper analysis -they just looked the thing over and said something like "very interesting, get it analysed". They were not forensic examiners and didn't claim to be, and they didn't say "the lack of age-bronzing is irrelevant", they simply didn't comment on that or on any other specific one way or the other.
So to try and claim this "absence of comment" as some kind of expert opinion that age-bronzing doesn't matter is quite unjustifiable.
But, if anyone genuinely believes that the Jarndyce and/or BM experts might disagree with this analysis then the only thing to do is contact them again and ask them directly.
Paul, may I suggest you do this and report the results here?
Karoline |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 05:49 am | | There still seems to be some confusion about the forgers having to research Maybrick's travels to make sure that he wasn't provably in Liverpool on a murder date. The root of the confusion seems to lie in our current situation where we are pretty easily traceable. If we go out for the day and the PM is shot from the vicinity of our house then we may be able to show that we were, say, in Birkenhead by credit card receipts with dates and times, by CCTV footage or by any of a number of ways that our grandmotherly state keeps track of us. In many ways, Victorian England was a much more free society. If in 1889 Maybrick had been suspected of being JtR then probably his friends could have given him alibis: he was at someone's house for dinner and stayed past the time of the last London train. 112 years later we can only rely on the printed word. I've shown that a forger would only have needed to check out files of local newspapers to make sure that Maybrick's name wasn't listed as a guest at some function or another. (It was common in those days to list every guest at a ball or public dinner in the newspapers: names sold papers.) This research would take less than an afternoon's work in Liverpool Library, and the forger would not have to leave his name at the desk or show ID to get on a microfilm machine.So the basic research here is, as many of us have said here over the years, very simple and basic: read the books on JtR and Maybrick and maybe, check the newspapers. Nothing more. If anyone out there can point to something in the diary that would have needed more involved research, please tell me.
I'm sorry if I have upset Yazoo by my brevity, nay curtness in answering his questions. It's in the main because I think that the diary problem is not helped by the sort of over-lengthy line by line criticism that has recently been appearing here. Although it's difficult not to make assumptions about the various characters involved in this saga and I have been guilty of that myself in the past, I do try to keep my thoughts on a practical level as I hope you'll see above. The solution to this problem will not be found by academic line-by-line, word-by-word criticism of what other people may put on these boards. This is why, unfortunately, I can no longer read John Omlor's posts and therefore cannot applaud his wit and craft.
By the way, what is "beetle-browed?" I've often wondered. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 05:59 am | | Karoline
“So to try and claim this "absence of comment" as some kind of expert opinion that age-bronzing doesn't matter is quite unjustifiable.”
To begin with, I did not say that absence of comment amounted to an expert opinion that age-bronzing didn’t matter and I did not invest either of the experts with an opinion about bronzing one way or the other. I think it might help if you tried to be a little more precise in your interpretation and reporting of what is actually said. What I said was that neither expert commented on the lack of bronzing as being inconsistent with a document of late-Victorian composition and I asked whether bronzing was therefore important. For all I know bronzing may only occur with iron-gall inks and without forensic examination to determine the type of ink used the lack of bronzing might not in itself have been a dead giveaway to age.
“The Jarndyce/ BM question that keeps being raised is really a red herring.”
Very far from it. Two people familiar with Victorian documents looked at the ‘diary’, saw nothing inconsistent with a late Victorian composition and committed themselves on paper to that conclusion. This tells us that the forger, by accident or design, was able to fool two experts by not doing something that would leap from the page and make them immediately suspicious.
“So, even though, as RJ has observed, one cannot actually date the ink itself, the complete absence of bronzing in '92 means it is virtually impossible for it to be significantly old.”
This is the crux of the issue, but you seem to be completely missing the point that we are talking about a document written between mid-1989 and mid-1992 or sometime before mid-1989 and mid-1992. So perhaps you would like to clarify what you mean by ‘significantly old’? How long would the ink have to be on the paper before bronzing began? One year? Two years? Three years? Four years?
And one point you haven’t yet addressed is that Alec Voller did not base his judgement that the document was old solely or even initially on the onset of bronzing. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 06:50 am | | I don't believe this! I go away for a day and come back to find a still-murmuring undercurrent of suggestion that a real connection between Mr Kane and Mr Barrett has been shown to exist!
So, please be advised: The witnesses to my will (dated 17 March 1995) are J.Reid and S.Corbett. I know Paul Begg well. A prize of £25 is offered to anyone who can show that Paul has the faintest idea who either of them is or could identify them in any way. A similar prize to anyone who can show that either witness knows anything about Paul beyond having possibly noticed him as a co-author with me on one book, and maybe as the author of other books on mysterious topics and articles on computer topics.
It will be taken as evidence of remarkably strong research skill if anybody can actually identify the two witnesses S.Corbett and J.Reid. And it is immensely probable that as soon as any such identification is made, the researcher will instantly recognize that they and Paul come from such different geographical and personal interest areas that there is not the slightest likelihood of any connection.
(By the way, I have't checked with Paul, so if he does know anything about them he will be able to pick up an easy £25).
Martin Fido |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 06:56 am | | Peter
I think the point is that the forger would be starting from scratch and you should not assume their knowledge or ignorance. You actually have to know that something doesn’t exist before you can be sure it doesn’t exist, therefore one really has to assess how hard it would be to satisfy oneself that a diary detailing Maybrick’s day-by-day appointments wouldn’t be quickly and easily discoverable by a professional researcher.
As far as John Omlor is concerned, you may not find the time of have the interest to read his posts, but personally I have found Karoline’s dogmatic statements, misrepresention of other points of view and dismissal of alternative arguments as Elvis is alive-type rubbish to be highly obstructive to reasoned argument and to finding a solution to this little mystery. If a person advances an illogical proposition then that person must either be ignored or an effort will be made to illustrate why their proposition is illogical. That is what John Omlor has been attempting to do with Karoline. It may well be true, as you say, that “The solution to this problem will not be found by academic line-by-line, word-by-word criticism of what other people may put on these boards”, but that was not the purpose of the criticism. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 06:58 am | | | Well, in two days I have had a Brick Lane curry and twenty-five quid chucked in my direction and I can't claim either. If I don't win the lottery tonight, and I won't, because I never do, then that will be three disappointments in a row. Life simply isn't fair sometimes. |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 08:06 am | | Paul,
Thanks for making it clear that you accept the material on age-bronzing makes it virtually impossible for the 'diary' to be either genuine or an old fake.
I agree with your view that we are down to a date from between late 1980s and 1992 as the likely time frame for the diary to have been created.
I don't think age-bronzing alone could help narrow that down any further, but there might be material in the other ink tests as well as in the diary-content which might allow us to draw more precise conclusions. I'm presently going through all this back-data in order to see if anything is being missed.
One question for you:
You say Voller used other data, beside the age-bronzing as the basis for his conclusions.
Coudl you tell me what that other data was?
K |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 09:38 am | | Martin,
You read my mind this morning.
I too was going to offer a thought on claiming that, because both Kane and Mike knew Tony, they were therefore somehow linked or tied-in.
This is sheer nonsense. I talk with some of you people everyday on this little electronic pub. I have a very best friend in the world. Can anyone tell me they are linked to or tied in with him solely because you both know me? Can anyone even tell me what his name is? If he wrote a fake diary and I passed it onto you would you know anything at all about him then, even that he existed, if I didn't tell you? Would you therefore had to have known where the book came from? Would you in any way be an "associate" of his or "tied-in" with him? Of course not.
But perhaps you are bothered by the distance factor of our little cyber-friendships here.
OK. I drink at least three nights a week at a local Irish Pub called Annie Moore's. There are at least three of four people there I see almost every time and talk with regularly. I could not tell you the name of any one of their other friends and associates (if they did not also drink with us), nor what these friends or associates do for a living, nor even if said friends and associates exist. I know nothing at all about any of these friends and associates. I am in way, shape or form linked or tied into them in any meaningful way other than I know one person that knows them.
And, if one of those friends or associates happened to forge a diary, and give that diary to one of my drinking friends, who later gave it to me without telling me where he got it or who wrote it, and I had to decide what to do with it, I might very well do exactly what Mike has done, try and research it, try and compare it to an authentic diary, copy its text into my computer to make copies, and finally take it to an agents. And even having done all this, I would still have no idea who wrote this thing or why or that the penman even existed or anything about him or her. I would bug my friend to find out, but I could not make him tell me. I might be inclined, myself, to just give the thing back. But Mike was not.
Well, in any case, the point of all this is just that there is simply no link or tie-in between Mike Barrett and Kane whatsoever that means anything at all or that has any evidence to support it whatsoever. No link has in any way been established that is in any way significant or useful for us at all. None. So anything said about Kane and his handwriting and what it shows, tells us nothing at all about the likelihood or possibility that Mike Barrett was or was not knowledgable or complicit in any way in the creation of this forgery. It simply cannot, unless Mike is somehow eventually shown to have known that the mysterious Mr. Kane even existed and that he knew him. If you cannot show this, you cannot claim anything at all about Mike's complicity with him. Period.
And this is simply and demonstrably true, whether Peter is reading this or not or following this or not or applauds this or not. 
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 09:51 am | | Pater Peter,
I am sorry that you have chosen again to announce that you can no longer read my posts (or applaud them -- I do so long to hear the sound of your two hands clapping, or at least one of them to soothe the Zen monk in my soul). I seem to recall that you stopped reading my posts right around the time that I clearly and definitively demonstrated that you had contradicted yourself in your analysis of the diary purchase, by using the very same claim ("it is illogical and unreasonable") to support one alternative (Mike's criminal intent) and to reject another alternative (Mike's non-criminal intent). You clearly and explicitly wrote and offered Mike's being illogical and unreasonable as an explanation for his buying the diary with a criminal intent and then you dismissed his possibly buying it without criminal intent by saying such a purchase would be illogical and unreasonable. This is a clear and blatant self contradiction and demonstrates definitively that you are simply assuming Mike's criminality to start with and then fitting your reading to that conclusion, even if it means contradicting yourself to do it. My reading showed this clearly. You then stopped reading me. OK.
But, Peter, now I wish at the very least that you would read my small post to you about golf and the importance and honor of carefully and meticulously following the rules, even when no-one is watching or policing you.
But perhaps you would miss the point of that, too. I don't know.
If you'd like to see if you can follow it, and if you can applaud it, I would be grateful.
You can find it on this board, sent on Monday, May 07, 2001 - 03:48 pm. If you do a Keyword search of the board for the word "golf" it will be the third post in the first entry.
It might help explain in clear terms that you can follow and relate to and that are as you say "practical" and therefore that you can understand, just why I have written how and what I have, and why, in fact, my analyses of people's consistency and logical validity and soundness and the unsoundess and consequent injustice of their accusations -- why these analyses of mine are in fact the most practical thing in the world. Because they help us determine what is logically possible.
Check it out Peter. I think it might help you see what I am saying and why. Monday, May 07, 2001 - 03:48 pm -- keyword "golf" -- it's waiting for you to read it with an open mind and to react honestly and fairly to it. If you do, then I think we can start taking each other seriously.
Thanks, and have a very nice day,
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 09:52 am | | Okay. No opinions yet on whether handwriting analysis alone provides a satisfactory test to determine who physically wrote the diary -- in other words, to determine who scratched those letters onto the 'diary's' pages. So we're still left to argue for the samples/if they exist/what would be the signficance if the sample did exist and matched the 'diary'/etc.
You might offer the exact criteria that would prove who put pen to paper.
But let's assume that every criteria has been met to satisfy who put pen to paper and wrote the 'diary.'
The next question would be:
Has the crime of forgery been committed if you know who put the words on the paper and you know that person was not James Maybrick, the purported 'author' of the 'dairy?'
We need a definition of forgery (as a crime) to reasonably answer this question. People from many nations read and post here, so I'll use a definition that cites no specific statute but gives the essence of the criteria for determining if forgery has been committed. I'll quote from Black's Law Dictionary -- Fifth Edition:
---------------------------------------------------
"A person is guilty of forgery if, with purpose to defraud or injure anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the actor:
(a) alters any writing of another without his authority; or
(b) makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues, or transfers any writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act, or to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original when no such original existed; or
(c) utters any writing which he knows to be forged in a manner specified in paragraph (a) or (b).
Crime includes both act of forging handwriting of another and act of uttering as true and genuine any forged writing knowing same to be forged with intent to prejudice, damage, or defraud any person."
---------------------------------------------------
So, again:
Has the crime of forgery been committed if you know who put the words on the paper and you know that person was not James Maybrick, the purported 'author' of the 'dairy?'
Yaz
P.S., Sorry, Peter, I got out of hand with you yesterday. I understand your frustration. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 10:08 am | | Hello all (except Peter, who is not reading this and therefore now gets no hello, nyaaah!) 
Seriously, though, I did want to say something very simple about this ink test mess.
So far, I have seen two things claimed here as definite by experts.
In 1995, Alec Voller claims the ink certainly did not go on the paper "in recent years."
In 1992, apparently Dr, Easthaugh claimed that the ink could not have gone on the paper in the past three years. (i.e. before October 1989).
Here, at least, there seems the beginning of an agreement.
Yes, I know that people want to argue about how both men arrived at this conclusion and whether the conclusion is scientifically sound or reliable. (I don't know and wouldn't presume to know more about this than either of these men, myself.)
But at least it seems two experts agree on something.
If we assume that Voller's "recent years" would mean at least the last five (prior to 1995, when he saw it)...
They agree that the ink could not have been put on the paper after 1989-1990.
Does everyone at least agree with this? Or is there conflicting scientific evidence that does clearly show that the ink was put on after 1990?
If not, then can we safely assume that this book was at least written before 1990?
That's all I wanted to ask.
I don't want to know how much before 1990 or before 1989, as Easthaugh concludes. Just can we agree that this book was written before 1989 or 1990? Let's say it could have been written in July and August of 1989 (that would allow for the Hillsborough disaster / Sphere book story, as well).
 Does everyone agree that it could have been written, as far as the science tells us, in July and August of 1989?
Is there any scientific evidence that says it could not have been written in July or August of 1989, but must have been written later than that?
Any at all? I am honestly asking here.
Dr Easthaugh and the chemist Alec Voller say it could not have been written after 1989 or 1990, right?
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 10:27 am | | Don't get carried away and put words in my mouth, Karoline. What I accept or don't accept is not at issue. What we are discussing is the Mike dunnit theory, which means narrows down the date of composition to between mid-1989 and mid-1992, and whether there is anything the evidence tells us that would place composition earlier than 1992.
And I believe I quoted Alec Voller's other 'evidence' in an earlier post and that it was thenon-uniform fading of the ink, colour and opacity, all of which indicated age before he even looked at the bronzing. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 10:35 am | | Mornin' Yaz,
You ask:
"Has the crime of forgery been committed if you know who put the words on the paper and you know that person was not James Maybrick, the purported 'author' of the 'dairy?'"
Yes.
--John
PS: In the interest of fairness and accuracy I have gone back and revised my earlier post to Peter above to include a word or two about when, tellingly, Peter chose to stop reading me. Of course, he's not reading this, so I don't suppose he'll see it. Oh well. Hi, non-Peter.
PPS: All right, here's the deal. This is serious. If whoever has the Kane samples lets Caroline pay to have an expert objectively analyze the handwriting (and Mike and Anne's if it is possible and they agree and everything), I'll just give that person fifty bucks, on top of Caroline's payment for the services.
That's right. You can now make fifty bucks just by letting someone else pay to have something done. When was the last time you had an offer that good? Fifty US greenbacks, all yours, all profit, if you just let Caroline pay to have the tests done.
I don't even know what that is in pounds.
C'mon.
Oh yeah, and can't we please see those samples here on these boards as jpgs? How much would that cost, anyway? Nothing, right? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 10:41 am | | Hi Karoline,
You wrote:
It would be next to impossible for a document of significant age that was written in iron-gall ink to exhibit no age-bronzing whatsoever.
The extent of the bronzing might vary considerably, but inevitably there would be a detectable amount.
Could you please tell us the source of your information?
Do you know if any of the specialists were asked if the onset of age-bronzing could have been retarded for any reason? Such as, if the ink in the diary had not been sufficiently exposed to the air, when the earlier examinations took place? Do you know anything about such possibilities? I don’t. But no one else appears to know either, although I’ve asked the same question a few times now. Surely such a question really ought to have been asked, if it wasn’t? If only to receive a definitive, “No – age-bronzing of the ink would be clearly detectable if the diary were any more than, say, three years old at the time of examination, regardless of how long it had been kept closed after its creation.”
Can you tell me categorically that this would be, or was, the specialists’ answer? Or are you as much in the dark as I am on this one? And if there is a total "absence of comment" from the experts on this subject, would it be justifiable to try to claim it doesn’t matter?
I just think we non-scientists need to be extremely careful before we jump on the scientific ‘facts’ that look the most promising, especially if they just happen to fit with certain beliefs we hold dear regarding the age of the diary. For example, if you were to ask a specialist to look at the diary ink and give his professional opinion on its age, would you seriously be telling him beforehand, “I am assuming the diary is a modern forgery dating from the late 1980s or early 1990s”? (to quote part of your recent post on the Diamine question). He’d quite rightly say, “Then why ask me, if you are already assuming this much!” What you seem to be saying is that, if your specialist doesn’t agree with an assumption you have already made, you will then have to assume that your specialist has got it wrong. So, will this logic apply if any more tests are done on the diary in future? And if the professionals tell you that Kane’s handwriting is not a perfect match with the diary, will you simply say, “Well, it’s good enough for me”? We must surely weigh up the opinions of all the professionals involved and take great care not to accept or dismiss any on the basis of other ‘evidence’ that doesn’t point fairly and squarely in one direction, and one direction only. My green bricks apply equally well to the science as the events in the suspected forgers’ lives.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 10:50 am | | Karoline and Caroline,
(I've always wanted to do that.)
Do you both agree that this text could have been written in the summer or fall of 1989?
Is there any science at all, anywhere, that says it had to have been written after 1990?
Let's start there.
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 11:01 am | | We have the first crisis in trying to interpret the law in order to claim that an act of forgery has been committed.
John says, hopefully based solely on the question I asked and Black's definition of forgery, that "yes" forgery has been committed.
1) Certainly the author is writing in the first person, pretending to be someone else, namely James Maybrick.
2) But simply by putting pen to paper, and pretending to write as James Maybrick, is that alone evidence of the author's intent to deceive or defraud any person?
---------------------------------------------
Let's introduce the Black's Law Dictionary - Fifth Edition criteria for evidence of fraud:
"The fabrication or counterfeiting of evidence.
"The artful and fraudulent manipulation of physical objects, or the deceitful arrangement of genuine facts or things, in such a manner as to create an erroneous impression or a false inference in the minds of those who may observe them."
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 11:22 am | | Hi John,
To both your questions: I honestly don't know. Sorry.
I should have thought that to prove a forgery or fraud has been committed, the person who placed it, and any person subsequently profiting from it, had to know it was definitely a fake, yet was suggesting they didn't know. I think you would also have to prove that the person who created the diary intended to pass it off to the public as James Maybrick's genuine diary (either for money or for any other reason), and this would be next to impossible if that person was not the placer or someone who could be shown to have profited financially from it.
Thanks John, by the way, for your very generous offer to the mysterious owner of the Kane samples. I wonder if he/she will take it up anytime soon? And if not, why not? Perhaps RJ, Peter or Karoline can suggest a reason why non-action on this one can possibly be justified? Something tells me Melvin might be once again pulling some puppet-strings.
(Incidentally, does anyone remember a band called The Kane Gang, who had a one-hit wonder - back in the early 80s, I believe - with a song entitled something like "Closer to Heaven"? I'd love to hear that one again - perfect for a warm summer afternoon.)
John, if it's any consolation, Peter has long since ceased addressing me directly, and he evidently thinks it's somehow my fault if he writes a post for Shirley and she doesn't get to read it! I'm still puzzling over how I could possibly have 'stolen' his posts to her on the internet. Priceless!
Of course, the Peter Principle may be stopping him from reading my posts too. In which case, he may not have seen my offer! But, I guess RJ must still have his reasons for believing that there are 'sides', and that the 'side' he isn't on can be blamed for putting up all the obstacles... (sigh)
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 11:33 am | | Hi Yaz,
I fear that you might have changed ground on me here, slightly.
You ask:
2) But simply by putting pen to paper, and pretending to write as James Maybrick, is that alone evidence of the author's intent to deceive or defraud any person?
Of course not. Otherwise more than a few novels become criminal acts.
Remember, the relevant parts of the definition from Black's of forgery:
"(b) makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues, or transfers any writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act, or to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original when no such original existed"
and
"Crime includes both act of forging handwriting of another and act of uttering as true and genuine any forged writing knowing same to be forged with intent to prejudice, damage, or defraud any person."
That last phrase is key. The first paragraph above (b) could indict a novel like the fictionalized Tudor diaries that came out a while back. They were written in first person. The "I" refers to a historical figure sometimes. Those figures could not have authorized them. But they announce themselves as fiction.
If the Maybrick diary is a forgery, it must be because there has been "intent to prejudice, damage, or defraud" someone or other. I think this is tricky, but I think we need evidence that there has been intent to prejudice, damage, or defraud someone, before we go too far.
So perhaps my initial "yes" was wishful and hasty.
If not, and we agree that there has been intent to prejudice, damage or fraud someone, then we look at the evidence to see if it constitutes:
"The artful and fraudulent manipulation of physical objects, or the deceitful arrangement of genuine facts or things, in such a manner as to create an erroneous impression or a false inference in the minds of those who may observe them."
The key word here is "deceitful." Because it speaks again to intent.
Can we prove yet that someone clearly intended this arrangement of genuine facts or things to deceive us?
Remember that person would also have to know that this arrangement of genuine facts or things was false and deceitful.
Can we prove that someone intentionally wrote these words, knowing them to be an arrangement of facts or things that were false, with the deliberate intent to deceive,prejudice, damage, or defraud someone?
Can we prove that someone did specifically this?
Yet?
--John
PS: If neither Mike nor Anne actually wrote or even knew who wrote this diary, then according to your definition, they cannot be said to be complicit in forgery.
PPS: My fifty bucks remains on the table. Let's see those samples. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 11:58 am | | Caroline,
Hi, back. Yes, I think you are correct about the forgery problem, as I tried to demonstrate in my post above, which crossed with yours.
My first "yes." to Yaz might very well have been a little hasty.
Now.
It seems to me that the science at least agrees that this text could not have been written after 1990, and that it seems likely, given Easthaugh's report that this text could not have been written after October of 1989.
So there's a start.
October 1989 is probably the last time someone could have put this ink on this paper. Right?
Everyone agree to this?
Is there any science that demonstrates or proves that this ink was put on this paper after October 1989?
If not, then let's assume that October 1989, as evidenced by Easthaugh and Voller, is the last time anyone could have put this ink on this paper.
Now, what the hell was Mike Barrett doing buying a maroon Victorian diary in 1992 if the Maybrick diary was written and finished before October 1989?
Oh, I know, he was going to use it in a criminal act two weeks later, at a meeting he had already arranged before he even got the maroon diary. Of course! That's why he gave his real name and his home address when he ordered it. How silly of me for not seeing the obvious and logical likelihood of this right away.
See? This is about the point when Peter stopped reading me, when I clearly demonstrated that his offering the very same premise to accept one version of the diary story (Mike does illogical and unreasonable things, he must have bought it with criminal intent) and to reject another possibility (But Mike could not have bought with non-criminal intent, that would be illogical and unreasonable) was directly and definitively contradictory on his part and therefore unsound and simply against the rules of the game. He had assumed guilt and was therefore happy even to contradict himself in front of everyone if it meant he could somehow read an event to indicate this guilt, even if it did not. And he did have to contradict himself to read this event and claim that it clearly indicated guilt.
Meanwhile, back on the ranch, how about this. Let's have a collection. Anyone out there want to throw in a few bucks on top of my fifty? We'll make it so attractive, that the sample owner(s) cannot afford not to let Caroline pay to have the sample objectively analyzed.
And by the way, what possible reason is there for all this secret identity stuff anyway?
Who has seen these samples?
Who made up the "consensus" that determined that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?"
Who are these people specifically?
Why aren't we allowed to know this?
This stinks.
--John
PS:  Peter, it's for you. Wait... Oh no, what will we do now? |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 11:58 am | | As I have already said here once today - I think a date for the creation of the diary of between 1989 and 1992 is perfectly reasonable. All the data, both forensic and historical seems to fit very well into this rough time-frame.
"Is there any science at all, anywhere, that says it had to have been written after 1990?"
Well, as I reported quite extensively yesterday - the diary ink is very probably Diamine ink (since Diamine is the only modern manufacturer that has been identified as using nigrosine, a substance found in the diary-ink).
Diamine ink has been shown to age-bronze in about three years.
The diary-ink began age-bronzing in 1995, so this indicates it had been put on the paper around 1992.
This doesn't prove the 1989 date impossible, but it is suggestive, and should be taken into consideration.
Re: Eastaugh and the age of the ink:
I don't think Eastaugh ever claimed the text could not have been written after 1989. This is a slightly over-rigorous interpretation put on his words by others.
These are his exact words as quoted here recently by Smith:
"Research suggests that solubility allows us to follow ink as it dries for a period of perhaps about three to five years…"
He is not claiming any definite or proven facts, just mentioning a vague possibility. And his usage of the words "suggests" "perhaps" and "about" indicate he is not making precise definitions here.
So to take his "perhaps about three to five years" as if it excluded any date after the fall of 1989 is being too literal and absolutist for the context of his words.
It's a rough statement, in fairness to Eastaugh we should accept it only roughly.
However, as with all the other data, it does help to set a time-frame of the late 1980s or early 1990s for the creation of the forgery.
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 12:19 pm | | Karoline,
All right, then. You are saying that the ink could have been put on the paper in 1989 and it could have been put on the paper in 1991, right?
Nothing in your science tells me that it could not have been put on the paper in 1989, right?
And you are disagreeing with Caroline's reading of Dr. Easthaugh. You are saying that Dr. Easthaugh was not claiming in 1992 that the ink had to be at least three years old or he would have seen clear evidence of this?
Here again, for reference, are Easthaugh's words and Caroline's reading:
Easthaugh speaks first:
"‘Research suggests that solubility allows us to follow ink as it dries for a period of perhaps about three to five years… 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 [Smith] 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.'"
Caroline concludes:
"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."
This seems to make sense to me.
But, in order to be fair, let me run it by everyone and see what they think.
Here it is.
Easthaugh writes:
"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."
So if it was less than a few years, we could adequately differentiate inks of quite dissimilar age, right?
And we can't here, right?
So the ink must be more than a few years old, right?
This was written in 1992, right?
So the ink must have at least been put on the paper a few years before this, right?
That would be 1989, right?
Where is the too-rigorous or "too literal and absolutist" reading here? This is what the man said. These are his quoted words above, aren't they?
Seems clear.
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 12:26 pm | | Someone asked about the science of age-bronzing.
I'm no scientist, but I have been doing a bit of research recently - both in this context and in relation to a different scenario entirely.
It's complicated and inexact and one could not, for example, 'date' a document with any precision on the age-bronzing factor alone.
Yes, certain factors, including exposure to light, can speed the process up or slow it down. Things like the thickness of the ink and the type of paper used all have an impact on the process. Even in a single document the bronzing can vary from page to page, line to line.
However, the chance of a document that was a hundred or more years old presenting with no signs of bronzing at all is next to impossible.
And in general terms, with regard to the diary, the total absence of bronzing in 1992 indicates it is unlikely the ink had been on the diary-paper for very long.
Indeed,the presence of the nigrosine and the bronzing pattern shown by the diary-ink suggests that in 1992 it had been on the paper almost no time at all.
K |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 12:40 pm | | I think John's second response is more to the point of the statement I put and in its use of Black's Law Dictionary.
Yes it is forgery if, and only if (based solely on the statement I offered thus far...not on any other hypotheticals) one of the Barretts is proven to be the person who put the words on paper.
Why? There would be evidence showing that one or both Barretts created the document and presented it with the intent to deceive or defraud -- in other words:
a) they know the book is not by Maybrick because they wrote it;
b) they presented it to someone to publish in exchange for which they would recieve payment (injury, fraud);
c) if they make misleading statements or allow others to believe anything other than that they wrote the 'diary'
d) all this constitutes forgery.
First thing to do then would be to test the handwritings of both Barretts against the 'diary.'
----------------------------------------
John jumped several steps ahead of us, but let's continue this process assuming that the Barretts are proven not to be the author(s) of this writing.
--------------------------------------------------
Always using Black's definition of forgery and its criteria of evidence, answer this question:
Has the crime of forgery been committed if the author simply transfers the writing to another person?
John has leapt a little ahead so we can pose an answer here:
Not necessarily.
We have to have evidence that the author either misrepresented the writing or allowed another to misinterpret the writing to be something he knows it is not, with the "purpose to defraud or injure anyone or with the knowledge he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone..."
My statement has made no mention of anything that could be evidence yet. Also keep in mind that suspicion is not evidence...of guilt or anything other than someone feels something/someone is "suspicious."
And at this point, we can't even call it a diary yet because we have no evidence that (1) it is a diary, or (2) the author intends the writing to be understood as a diary.
What do we need here?
Authorship alone is not evidence of forgery; neither is simply transfering the writing from one person to another.
--------------------------------------------------
Next question can be skipped thanks to our being ahead of the process, but a statement must take its place because it defines what we need in the way of evidence both here and in the example described above:
No act of forgery has been committed in any subsequent, indefinite, or unknown sequence of transfers of the writing unless:
(1) we have evidence that any one or a group of people knew the writing was not written by its purported author, James Maybrick,
(2) and either made utterance or allowed another to think the writing was something it was not (i.e., that James Maybrick is the author),
(3) and made such misrepresentation with the "purpose to defraud or injure anyone or with the knowledge he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone..." (see the rest of Black's Law Dictionary's definition of forgery)
Any objections so far?
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 12:45 pm | | Yaz,
Sounds good so far.
Thanks,
--John
PS:  Fifty of them, all profit, on top of Caroline's paying for the objective tests..
How can you go wrong?
Who was in the mysterious "consensus?"
Why are they keeping this from us?
Who has seen these samples? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 12:52 pm | | John--Aren't you picking & choosing what you wish to believe about the ink? A Year earlier, Baxendale found the ink quite soluble, which castes some doubt on Eastaugh's statement, it seems to me. Please also read Eastaugh's cautious comments in the latest edition of Shirley's book. I do NOT agree that the diary HAD to have been written before 1989. And please do not ignore the fact of what Alec Voller really said. His opinion was that the writing in the diary was at least 90 years old! How do you make the compatible with a reference to the unpublished police list? If you look at the Leeds report listed by Harrison, they claim the diary's ink had no sodium. Eastaugh claims it did have sodium. It's fairly clear to me that ---as Eastaugh himself stated-- that science doesn't yet have a convincing & absolutely foolproof method of dating ink on paper. Don't you think it is dangerous (a word you use quite frequently) to inisist that all theories be based on the "fact" that the diary must be at least as old as 1989? I don't think we know that. Best wishes.
Caz--You insist there are no 'sides' and no 'agendas' --which I would surely love to believe. But what on earth do you mean by the statement (in the same breath) that 'Something tells me that Melvin might again be pulling some puppet strings?" What does that statement mean, exactly? I'd like to see a professional analysis of AG's, MB's, and GK's handwriting; unfortunately, it is not within my power.
RP |
|
|
|
|
