|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 15, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 15, 2001
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 12:52 pm |        | Hi again, K,
So Easthaugh was wrong when he said that he would have seen clear evidence if the ink was less than a few years old, and he didn't see that evidence?
Once again, here are his words and mine:
Easthaugh wrote:
"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."
And then I asked you:
"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?"
 Now, Karoline, you claim that:
"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."
So Dr. Easthaugh must be wrong, Karoline.
That is the only way you can be right, here.
Karoline, it's not too-literal to suggest that Easthaugh at the very least claimed that if the ink was newer than a few years old he could have seen certain things and done certain things. He could not see or do those things, so the ink must not have been newer than a few years old in 1992.
Therefore, he does claim that the ink was at least a few years old in 1992.
You suggest that in 1992 it had been on the paper almost no time at all.
You can't both be correct (unless "almost no time at all" means the same thing as "at least a few years"), and we are not simply misreading the Dr. or being too literal, this is what he said, even roughly and even giving you the most lenient and general interpretation of his words possible, as I demonstrate clearly above.
Either you are wrong about the ink being there almost no time at all or Dr. Easthaugh and Alec Voller, Diamine's chemist, are wrong.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 01:04 pm | | Hi there RJ,
You know what?
I am perfectly prepared and quite happy to admit and conclude that the science is finally uncertain and conflicted and therefore we do not know from this science when, between say 1970 and 1992, this book was written. That's fine. Let's stop even looking at the ink-science if we all agree that this book was written sometime between 1970 and 1992 and that we can simply be no more precise than that whatsoever and so can say nothing at all about this ink being probably or necessarily more recent than 1989.
Do you agree to this RJ? I would. That was all I was trying to demonstrate anyway.
In that case we are right back where started from, having to examine the physical and material evidence and see objectively what it tells us and does not tell us about what likely happened. And what we can and cannot claim about what happened as well.
Right?
--John
PS: Do you know who was in the mysterious "consensus" that that determined from new samples that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?"
Who were these people specifically? Do you know?
Why aren't we allowed to know this? Do you have any idea?
Nothing personal, here RJ. I'm just going to start asking these two questions of everyone, I think. You just happened to be the first to post. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 03:02 pm | | Karoline
You say that nigrosine was used in the 19th century but not, so far as you know, in any inks between then and its use in Diamine. Could you provide your source for this information please?
Did not Dr. David Baxendale, whose opinions you have elsewhere brought to the attention of this Board, say that nigrosine “is a complex mixture of substances, but one which has been used in many inks, at least since the 1940s.”? (My emphasis). Has he now denied the truth of this?
And when Dr. Baxendale said that "There is no sign of such a brown colour", i.e., no sign of bronzing, his complete sentence was "The ink is generally dark grey in colour and is not obviously an iron based ink. Most inks used in the late nineteenth century were based on iron as a main ingredient, and such inks tend to change to a brown colour with age."
It's the use of the word "tend" that worries me here. It isn't a definite does. And wasn't Mr Voller's opinion that Diamine would have been blacker than the 'diary' ink? And although Dr. Baxendale said that the 'diary' ink could have been lightened by the addition of water, didn't Alec Voller specifically deny this, pointing out that it would have been impossible to reproduce the variations in the lightness of the ink?
Your studies may, I hope, shed some light on these issues. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 03:05 pm | | No need, I think, to go any further in order to make some general observations.
1) There are common (but certainly non-legal) definitions of "forgery" or "fraud." Each person might define these terms slightly differently; but the point is, no definition has any meaning in relation to criminality other than the appropriate legal definition (not necessarily Black's, but definitely the one where jurisdiction is established).
2) Any use of the words "forgery" or "fraud" introduces confusion among people who have differing definitions of these terms -- including both the meaning of the word itself but also for what purpose (criminal versus, say, academic) it is being used.
3) Scientific or expert tests or testimony alone cannot determine whether the crime of forgery or fraud has occurred.
To my knowledge, no scientific tests or expert's opinion (not even a polygraph test in many jurisdictions) constitute evidence of knowledge and intent -- both of which must be established to characterize anything as, legally, a crime.
4) Determining that the 'diary' is not what it is implied to be also cannot be used alone to establish whether the crime of forgery or fraud has occurred.
5) Identifying the actual author or penman, or showing how the 'diary' passed from one person to another, cannot be used alone to establish whether the crime of forgery or fraud has occurred.
6) So there may be two motives, or two methods, used in viewing the diary:
a) One approach uses the following premises: the diary is acknowledged as not being what is implies it is, that identifying the author or penman does not mean you have proved or can even assert the author is a criminal, that identifying the people who passed the diary along until it reached the Barretts also does not mean you have proved or can even assert these people are criminals, and mere possession of the diary does not mean you have proved or can even assert the Barretts are criminals.
b) The other approach views the diary situation with suspicion that there may be criminals and criminal activities involved in everything stated in (a), otherwise there is little or no difference in procedure...that is the processes used to identify the author, identify the people who passed it on, etc.
7) So not only do you have an inconsistent use of terms like "forgery" or "fraud," you also have two approaches that share some of the same methodologies (like tests to prove age, penmanship, etc.) but differ greatly in how that information is used:
(a) for purely academic purposes, in pursuit of "knowledge," and
(b) to try to establish if a crime has been committed, by whom, and how.
-------------------
What do you do next?
All of these areas generating possible confusion are up to all of you to clear up; that probably involves recognizes the part each of us plays in causing this confusion that degenerates into smaller or largers forms of conflict.
We aren't children, so I see no need for me to point out examples of confusion/conflict or suggestions for overcoming these obstacles. (Besides, I've tried to do this a week or so ago and ever since.)
--------------------
Final legal problem which I leave it up to you all to ignore or consider:
There is a possibility that the various and conflicting claims of how the 'diary' came into the Barretts' hands is evidence of a crime and, potentially, a series of crimes. Simple proof of authorship could serve as evidence of this crime.
There are at least three ways I think I've heard for how the 'diary' came to the Barretts:
1) Devereaux (or, at first, an unspecified friend) gave Mike the 'diary.' At the time, and for a period of time thereafter, neither Barretts disputed this story. Correct?
2) Mike has confessed that he forged the 'diary.' I can't keep track of the variations of Mike's confessions, so I won't present them here.
3) Anne Graham (formerly Anne Barrett) is now saying that the 'diary' has been in her family for years. Correct?
Whatever the variations given by the Barrets together or separately, there can be only one story that is the truth, the whole truth, and ain't nothing but the truth. Correct?
So one or both of the Barretts can be suspected of making false statements. Learning who wrote the 'diary,' when, and how it was passed to the Barretts will determine which Barrett/Graham is lying...if not both.
Consider the second part of Black's definition of forgery:
"...or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone..."
Does the demonstration that either or both of the Barretts, at any time, have lied or are lying about how they got the 'diary' open up the door for a prosecutor to try to prove "knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone?"
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 04:02 pm | | Hi Yaz,
As for me, and I'm speaking only for me now, I'm happy to pursue the first of your two options.
This one:
"a) One approach uses the following premises: the diary is acknowledged as not being what is implies it is, that identifying the author or penman does not mean you have proved or can even assert the author is a criminal, that identifying the people who passed the diary along until it reached the Barretts also does not mean you have proved or can even assert these people are criminals, and mere possession of the diary does not mean you have proved or can even assert the Barretts are criminals."
I am interested to know who wrote this diary and when and how. I am interested to know how it came into the Barrett's possession.
Legally, I have no interest in proving or even asserting that anyone is a criminal.
I would not be particularly interested in attempting to make this judgment.
On the other hand, I am interested in responding and even compelled to respond to anyone who might infer malicious and criminal intent and suggest that this is what the evidence indicates. And I am passionately interested in demanding, in the name of at least some responsibility and justice, that they back up, with some logical and sound and reliable evidence of some sort, any claims that someone did do something with an intent to defraud or to deceive. If someone here does suggest that someone else was likely or probably intending to defraud, prejudice, or deceive, then that accusation should be treated carefully and with respect and the request should go out immediately that the evidence necessary to support such a claim be spelled out logically and in detail and that it clearly indicates that such accusations are warranted.
Keeping this point in mind, and considering your request for clarity of intention here on our parts, I will pass on your final legal question for now.
Thanks for the very useful post,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 04:08 pm | | Hi Paul,
Oh yes, I almost forgot.
Thanks for the kind words in defense of my work, in your response to Peter. I appreciate it. Do not fear, in any case. Peter stopped reading me right after I demonstrated that he had blatantly contradicted himself in his reading of the diary purchase and that, in his desire to read everything as somehow evidence of complicity and as support for his already assumed conclusion about the likelihood of Mike's guilt, he was willing to assert one thing and its opposite at the same time. After I made this clear, Peter stopped reading me. Is there, as Hume would say, a "necessary connection" here? I hope not. But I'm fine with it all the same. There is never any useful response to someone who admittedly does not read what you write.
Everyone,
I hope it hasn't been lost, in all of this, that in Peter's last post he did admit that the forgers would not have been able to get all the Maybrick information they needed from just one or two books. That they would have at least had to do some other research as well, including at the very least spending some time in the library tracking down and reading reports in 19th Century newspapers concerning Maybrick's documented comings and goings.
Peter says this:
"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.)"
Peter suggests this would not have taken them very long on a microfilm machine. That's fine. But at least we now know that the forgers could not have gotten all their info from one or two books and that they did have to at least make a trip to some library or someplace and track down and call up 19th Century newspaper accounts of events and travels and make sure that Maybrick was not listed at some event or another on the weekends of the murders and therefore simply disqualified from possibly being the Ripper. Our forgers at least would had to have determined this.
Please keep this fact in mind as we start looking for likely suspects.
Thanks all, and especially thanks for this insight, to Peter (who is, of course, not reading this),
--John
PS: Paul, do you know who was in the mysterious "consensus" that determined from new samples that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?"
Who were these people specifically? Do you know?
Why aren't we allowed to know this? Do you have any idea? |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 04:35 pm | | | Maybe the newspaper is the one who owns the sample of Kane's writing and they have already made it plain that they are unwilling to publish or share their information. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 04:40 pm | | Do I detect in this lengthy correspondence (which I admit to reading rather fleetingly) that others are now coming to my long-held opinion that the scientific evidence has been so disputed and chewed over, and the contradictory lab rports are so distressing, that we really have to abandon it as the promising way through the Gordian knot we once hoped it would be?
My own recollections of Mr Voller's contributions are that they inevitably inconsistent, as they were extracted by the rack of Feldman followed by the thumbscrews of Melvin Harris: whenever he gave an opinion that suited the one, the other would leap in, push new evidence or 'evidence' under his nose, and elicit something like a retraction.
Yaz, I think you are reaching out at the other great problem with the witness evidence. Anne's 'silence' at the time of Mike's original story was taken to mean consent by those who were talking to her, whether they thought it was assenting to a story she thought or knew to be true, or, as was certainly the case with one iterviewer, thought her demeanour indicated complicity in and guilty knowledge of some deception that was being practised. And her own 'confession' indicates some sort of lying to Mike. So unless you take the charitable view that this was part and parcel of a dreadful marital situation under which circumstances you wouldn't want to hold Anne responsible for culpable lying, you're left with the problem that all three of your accurately described witness-statement scenarios come to us through two distinctly tainted witnsses.
All good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 04:58 pm | | Hi Alegria,
You write,
Maybe the newspaper is the one who owns the sample of Kane's writing and they have already made it plain that they are unwilling to publish or share their information.
Maybe. I don't know. No one has told us even this much.
Karoline told us that there was a "consensus," and that the consensus seemed to be that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?"
Who were these people that determined this, specifically? Why aren't we allowed to know at least this?
If it was the newspaper, why couldn't the newspaper, or those who know it was the newspaper, simply say, "Sorry, the newspaper has these new samples of Kane's handwriting, and that is who determined that 'it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary.'"
That would be OK with me, if it were true. They wouldn't even have to prove their conclusion about Kane to me, not yet. Just tell me who the consensus that decided this was.
But no one has even told us this much.
And I would like to know why.
Alegria, do you know who was in the mysterious "consensus" that determined from new samples that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?"
Who were these people specifically? Do you know?
Why aren't we allowed to know this? Do you have any idea?  |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 06:28 pm | | | I don't know who the people involved in the consensus were, nor do I know who owns the handwriting sample. Whoever does own it isn't coming forward though, and neither are the people who know who owns it. We don't know what the reasons for this might be. If there is a book to be published in it, then they are within their rights not to say anything. If there is not a book to be published in it, they are within their rights not to say. In the end, the people here on the message boards don't have the right to know anything. We want to know, sure..but we don't have the right. Maybe the sample proves that Kane is the forger and the person who owns it doesn't want the Diary exposed as a fake. That would be a very compelling reason NOT to take Caz up on her offer. There are a variety of scenarios that are all viable. As to why the people who know don't just tell us who owns it...why should they? The person who owns it clearly doesn't want to be named. The people who know the owner (assuming it is a person, not a corporation or a newspaper) obviously have ties to him or her and would be betraying a confidence to expose them. And for what? To satisfy our curiousity? Back in the day when I started the badgering for the newspaper name, I was also the one to call it quits when it became clear that it was not going to be revealed. The request for the handwriting sample has been made repeatedly. The information is no doubt in the hands of the person who must make the decision. Either they will come forward or they won't. Asking a hundred more times,probably won't have an effect on the decision..at least not a positive one. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 07:08 pm | | Hi Alegria,
But your post demonstrates precisely why it would be a good thing for whoever owns them and has determined that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the diary," to at least tell us who they are (not what's in them or what they show even, but just who they are). Otherwise, all the "maybes" and "perhapses" and speculation remains in place and the credibility of those doing the examining and the objectivity of those doing the examining inevitably begins to be questioned, perhaps needlessly and unfairly, as you rightly suggest.
And normally, I would agree with you that we have no "right" to know who owns them or who is determining that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary.'"
But someone wrote right here on these boards in the middle of a discussion, and told us that there were new samples of Kane's handwriting and "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?"
Once that fact has been made public, once we have been informed of this, it seems to me we do have the right and the responsibility to ask who makes up such a consensus and why we should believe in such a consensus' determination about what is now "very possible."
I can come on here and write "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Chris George wrote this diary."
But unless I then at least am willing to say who has seen the samples that make this "very possible" and who was in the consensus that determined this, my words are utterly meaningless, and worse than that, they have named someone and said there is now a consensus that it is very possible that he wrote the diary. All without any other statement or comment or even the detail of who it is that has allowed me to name Chris and claim that it is now "very possible" that he wrote the diary.
Would this be fair to Chris?
Of course not. But at least Chris could come forward and defend himself.
Gerard Kane is dead [or so I thought, or else very ill, Alegria now tells me below that he might still be with us].
Is this fair to Gerard Kane?
Of course not.
Is this fair, at all?
Of course not. What sort of people come forward in public and say that "it is now very possible" that someone who can no longer defend himself "could have written this diary," and then refuse to offer any evidence or even to identify who has determined this?
No, Alegria, we have no "right" to see anything. But if people are going to write sentences here on this board like "The consensus seems to be that it is now very possible that Kane could have written the diary," then I think we can expect at least a little information in the name of decency and in the name of simple justice. It was written here. It was not kept secret or kept quiet or not mentioned. Now it should at least be explained or defended.
You're probably right.
We probably won't get this.
That fact should be duly noted.
And I do not agree that because the answer is not forthcoming, the question should not be asked. If only to remind everyone about the missing answers and the consequent emptiness of the claim that "the consensus is that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the diary," I think it remains important to ask who was in this consensus that saw these new samples and how many people were there in this consensus and why aren't we being allowed to know this.
The information has already appeared here.
Because of new samples, "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written this diary."
That assertion was made public. This is different from the newspaper story. A name was named here.
Nothing has followed it.
This seems to me unfair. I am sorry if I am the only one who feels this way.
Thanks, and have a good evening, all,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 07:29 pm | | | As far as I know (and I could be wrong) Kane is still alive. If he wants to set the record straight, he is able to do so. And I am not saying a question should not be asked because an answer is not going to be forthcoming. I am questioning how many times it can reasonably and respectfully be asked, knowing that you aren't going to get an answer. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 09:09 pm | | Hi Alegria,
Really? I knew Kane was very ill and I thought I had heard that he finally passed, but perhaps not. If I am misinformed or mistaken about this, I apologize.
In any case, announcing in a public forum that there is some sort of consensus and that the "consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane wrote this diary," and then not offering any evidence or further comment after naming this man's name in public is simply unfair. Even if he is still with us. Especially if he is ill or otherwise unable to defend himself. This is not like Melvin's "unamed forgers." Someone is being singled out here and named and then no evidence or explanation or even the identities of those who came to this consensus is being offered. No one is coming forward from this "consensus" and standing behind this naming of a name. That does not seem right.
And the question serves at least as a reminder that this name was named and then the namers refused further comment or explanation and that this is unfair behavior and would be if any of us were named in this way without explanation or evidence or even without being given the identity of those who named us.
Bye for now, Alegria, and thanks for bringing this up and allowing me to discuss it with you.
Enjoy the evening, everyone,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 01:53 am | | Hi John
On the subject of the “consensus”, I would guess that it consists of Melvin Harris, Peter Birchwood and, most recently, Karoline Leach. And the additional samples of his handwriting are probably in the possession of one of the first two, are the basis of ongoing research and for the rest of us must be consigned for the time being to
“Evidence That Can Be Hinted At But Not Produced and Not Discussed”.
Hi Martin
Mr Voller’s original testimony was given to Shirley Harrison and was free from any Paul Feldman or Melvin Harris influences. The “scientific” data does emerge as highly questionable, but careful analysis should be able to extract something from it, if only a better lay understanding of the problems involved and the questions that should have been asked if anyone at the outset had had any idea what they were. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 03:25 am | | Hi Alegria
"If he [Kane] wants to set the record straight, he is able to do so."
Assuming that he knows there is a record to set straight. He may be completely unaware of what people are saying about him and if nobody asks him, how can he defend himself?
"I am questioning how many times it can reasonably and respectfully be asked, knowing that you aren't going to get an answer."
There are some questions one should never stop asking. But surely the issue here is that people should not make statements of fact unless they are prepared to back them up with the appropriate data or at least state the source of the data. If Karoline simply meant herself Melvin and Peter when she wrote "consensus", why can't she admit to meaning that? If she meant "and others who have seen the sample and whom I am not at liberty to name at this time", then let her say so. If she just responded to the questions put to her, or acknowledged when she has been imprecise or has perhaps unintentionally given the wrong impression, perhaps the questions wouldn't need to be asked more than once. |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 03:49 am | | Re: the Kane handwriting.
Firstly I think it's regrettable that this issue has become yet another excuse for ill-mannered and generally rude or insulting behaviour. It's outrageous and grotesquely offensive for Paul Begg and others to try and suggest that I or Peter Birchwood are behaving improperly here.
The issue is nothing to do with me. I don't own the sample, and have no control over where or when it is published.
I was just sent a copy of the writing. So was Peter Birchwood, RJ (I think) and several other people who contribute here. It was not given me by the person who owns it, but passed on by someone else.
I don't mention their name because they have asked me not to.
I do think the sample should be made public and have asked the owners of the sample to do so. But I can't make the decidion for them. However I believe it probably will be made public, when they think the time is appropriate.
When I mentioned that there was a "consensus" that Kane might have written the diary. I just meant that, as far as I knew, most people who had seen the writing agreed there was quite a similarity between it and the diary writing.
That's all.
I don't want anyone to take my or any one else's word for anything - that is why I've made it clear I think the handwriting should remain outside the pool of evidence and a non-issue until the sample is made public.
I think right now we should concentrate on the aspects of the evidence that are already published - the forensic tests, the historical analysis - and just leave the handwriting to one side for the time being.
I for one just don't have the time to continue answering these kind of pointless circular squabbles that some people here seem to enjoy so much.
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 04:09 am | | Once again -
it was not I who first used Kane's name here.
In fact I deliberately didn't use his name - precisely because it seemed improper.
I referred to him always anonymously - until Paul Begg (I think) mentioned the name, and there seemed little point in keeping up the pretence of anonymity.
So, it's simply outrageous for anyone to now claim I am naming names.
I did not do so, would never have done so.
Neither is it I who am keeping the name and the issue alive now.
It is those people who are most voluble about the man's right to privacy.
I agree he has a right to privacy.
That's why I would never have named him.
And that's one of the reasons why I think the issue should be dropped until either the man is dead or the evidence is in the public arena.
Let it drop, for heaven's sake.
K |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 05:44 am | | Some kind soul with much more patience than I has sent me a couple of paras culled from a typical John Omlor post. There are a couple of bits which have to be addressed in order to keep the discussion sane and to make sure that JO does not (unintentionally) mislead anyone. He says:" I hope it hasn't been lost, in all of this, that in Peter's last post he did admit that the forgers would not have been able to get all the Maybrick information they needed from just one or two books." Now the use of the word "admit" is a rather charged buzzword which might make people think that through the superb forensic skills of JO I had reluctantly agreed to something he had written. Obviously untrue. I frankly doubt whether the forgers bothered to check newspaper archives (available at most Liverpool libraries a short busride from Goldie Street) If they wanted to be sure about the movements of JM, that's what they could have done. All the info in the diary concerning Maybrick was published information available from those same libraries. As I said earlier if anyone can point to something in the diary that must have been the result of more involved research, I would like to know about it.
For some reason the email sender on the Casebook has stopped sending me copies of posts. Anyone else experiencing such difficulties? |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 06:12 am | | Paul wrote to me:
Did not Dr. David Baxendale...say that nigrosine “is a complex mixture of substances, but one which has been used in many inks, at least since the 1940s.”? (My emphasis). Has he now denied the truth of this?"
Nigrosine is commonly used in printing inks and, I believe, in stamp ink. But, according to Harris's own research, (which is quoted here on the Casebook), he has not managed to find any other modern manufacturer except Diamine who used nigrosine in a manuscript ink.
So, since the diary-ink is a mansuscript ink contining nigrosine, it seems currently very very probable that it is Diamine ink.
"And when Dr. Baxendale said that "There is no sign of such a brown colour", i.e., no sign of bronzing, his complete sentence was "The ink is generally dark grey in colour and is not obviously an iron based ink. Most inks used in the late nineteenth century were based on iron as a main ingredient, and such inks tend to change to a brown colour with age."
Yes, the absence of any bronzing in this document (that was supposed to be a hundred years old), suggested to Baxendale that it wasn't an iron-based ink. In fact it was an iron-based ink - and the absence of bronzing was therefore a solid indicator that the ink had not been on the paper for anything like a hundred years.
" It's the use of the word "tend" that worries me here. It isn't a definite does".
I think what Baxendale means is that the rate of the change is not constant or consistent - as I mentioned yesterday.
"And wasn't Mr Voller's opinion that Diamine would have been blacker than the 'diary' ink?"
Yes it was, though I don't think Voller actually provided any data to support this claim. And in contrast we have the observations of those, like Nick Warren, who used modern Diamine ink and pronounced
"the effect is very watery, astonishingly so at first"
"And although Dr. Baxendale said that the 'diary' ink could have been lightened by the addition of water, didn't Alec Voller specifically deny this, pointing out that it would have been impossible to reproduce the variations in the lightness of the ink?"
Paul, I think you have had the Voller business already explained to you several times. He made excessive claims (he asserted the ink was 90+ years old!) and obviously spoke without being fully aware of the facts (for example that his own Diamine ink will age-bronze in 3 years). He was also regrettably less than thorough in his explanations.
Here for example is an extract from a post of Harris's from last October:
"And I have a letter here from [Voller] in which he regrets that, in October 1995, he failed to mention that the ink could have been artificially aged by something as simple as a sunray lamp"
Hope this helps.
But Paul, almost all the questions you and your associates keep asking here have all been answered some time ago by Harris's superb scholarship.
Go to the Dissertations page, find the Maybrick articles and read through them.
You'll see that you were asking many of the same questions in 1998 and were having them answered back then.
What is the purpose of just asking them over and over and over again? Do you have some reason for wanting to make it appear there are a lot more mysteries here than there really are?
I really reccomend anyone who reads here - go to the Maybrick Diary articles on the "Dissertations" page and read Harris's work.
It is written with great clarity, honesty and authority and answers almost all the scientific and forensic questions.
All I'm doing here is putting those answers in simpler form in the hopes that those who don't know Harris's stuff is there (or those who are too exhausted to click a mouse-button a few times!) will get a better and more complete picture of the nature of the data presently available.
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 07:13 am | | Karoline, you are ill-mannered, rude and insulting and quite recently Martin Fido listed many examples, so I find your charges against myself and others a severe case of kettle calling. Furthermore, you have laid charges of ill-manners, rudeness and insults in the past and have failed to justify your complaints when asked. And I can actually see nothing in either of my posts that was insulting, rude or ill-mannered. On the contrary. I think my comments were well-mannered and correct.
“It's outrageous and grotesquely offensive for Paul Begg and others to try and suggest that I or Peter Birchwood are behaving improperly here.”
Who first mentioned the new samples of Kane's handwriting? If someone is going to cite evidence which they cannot or will not expand upon, do you think it might have been better if they'd not mentioned it all?
John Omlor has asked several times over a couple of days what you meant by “consensus”. You have not acknowledged his question let alone answered it. Don't you think ignoring a politely asked question is rude? All I did was observe that John wouldn't have to ask the question if you simply made the effort to answer it. Why is that 'outrageous' or 'grotesque'? Well, it isn't 'outrageous' or 'grotesque' really is i? Just right.
“I for one just don't have the time to continue answering these kind of pointless circular squabbles that some people here seem to enjoy so much.”
I, for one, don’t see a squabble or circular or pointless argument. I see you making a claim, John quoting you and challenging your statement, and you generally not replying. Frankly, Karoline, you returned to these Boards denying the validity of arguments alternative to your own and even denying that any such arguments existed (and I can and have cited the messages); I've seen you argue that Mike wrote the 'diary' and that he bought the maroon diary to transcribe it into. I have seen John challenge both these statements. You seem to think his challenges were unjustified and yet the arguments you are advancing now are different, modified to take account of some of the points he made. I'm genuinely pleased to see the modification, but why can't you also acknowledge that John's arguments had merit?
Finally, you have now twice linked my name to the first public revelation of Mr Kane's name. It has already been pointed out to you that Mr Kane’s name was first mentioned in Ripperana, which was presumably referring to information provided by or derived from either Melvin Harris or D.S. Thomas (presumably the former) or their source. You would also recall that Mr Kane – as Cane – was named in Paul Feldman’s book, the source for the information there being given as Melvin Harris. Mr Kane has also been discussed on the Boards many times, Peter Birchwood actually putting up Tony Devereux’s will bearing Mr Kane's handwriting. And Keith Skinner has claimed the responsibility for naming Mr Kane. There was and is no anonymity for you to protect, who first named Mr Kane has no relevance as it was put in the public domain a long time ago, and you could at least take heed of what you have been told and stop erroneously associating it with my name.
“And that's one of the reasons why I think the issue should be dropped until either the man is dead or the evidence is in the public arena.”
I appreciate you concerns for Mr Kane, but I'd be very interested in you explanation of why you think it is morally preferable to protect a man's privacy while he's alive than it is to malign him when he is dead and deprived of the opportunity to reply. |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 07:32 am | | | As it has already been stated (and now repeated by Karoline), she did not bring Kane's name to these boards. She also does not own the sample. She said she would pass on the request to place the sample here to the interested parties. She is not expected nor required to re-request everytime another post goes up asking why can't we know??? If the person plans to use the sample in a book, he or she has a perfectly valid excuse for not wanting to post it. Karoline has said that she thinks the handwriting is close but people need to wait until they see it themselves to their own opinions. She has seen it and made her opinions on it clear..she thinks there is a resemblance and so do the other people she has talked to. That is her opinion and her right. She can only speak for herself and cannot drag in unwilling participants. She made a statement about her OPINION and the opinions of some others that she has spoken to. Do you have to take her word that it is a match? No. If anyone here damns or praises someone based on what 'they' say, then they are foolish. Accept what she said as her opinion and wait until you can see for yourselves. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 07:38 am | | Peter - that Maybrick was not provably elsewhere when a Ripper murder happened was either good luck or it was knowledge that the forger possessed. If the latter, it was knowledge that could not have been obtained from the published books. This is what you appeared to be admitting when you said that the information could have been obtained in an afternoon's work consulting the local newspapers.
As I said earlier if anyone can point to something in the diary that must have been the result of more involved research, I would like to know about it.
The point, I think, was that it is not only a matter of what is in the 'diary' that needs to be assessed, but also what is not in it - in the sense of the knowledge the forger needed so that he did not make mistakes. Hence Maybrick's movements being luck or researched knowledge. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 07:55 am | | | Alegria - sorry, but I must have missed it where Karoline was accused of being the first to name Mr. Kane (but what's the big deal anyway? She's wrongly accused me of doing it twice and seems unaware that there was no secret about the name, it having been printed in Ripperana and Feldman's book long before it was mentioned on these Boards, and that the source of the name was or appears to have been Melvin Harris). I thought to issue concerned publicing the existance of new samples of Kane's handwriting and the claim that a "consensus" opinion was that the handwriting was similar to the diary. Specifically that it would have been better if the existance of the new samples had not been publicised until they could be made available to interested parties (or at least not publicised without explaining why they could not be made available) - so who first revealed their existance? Otherwise all John seems to have asked for is that Karoline explain what she meant by "consensus". She didn't do so. She has done so now, thank goodness, but she could have done it earlier and if she had done then we wouldn't be writing like this, don't you think? |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 08:36 am | | Paul,
It was Caroline M. who accused me of behaving "disgustingly" by as she put it "fingering" Kane in public.
Perhaps you missed that too.
And when I said I thought you were the first to mention the name - I meant in the context of the recent discussion.
I won't go into your other accusations against me because it seems no matter how many times a thing is proved to you, or how many times your questions are met with detailed factual responses, you still think you have the right to claim the proof hasn't been given, or your questions remain unanswered.
You did it to Harris, you did it to Ashling, and a dozen others, and now you're doing it to me. You ask a question, I answer it. You just ask again. You make an accusation I prove it's false. You just make it again.
Go ahead, if that is what you want to do, though it doesn't seem the best use of anyone's time. But in future if you ask me a question already answered, I'll just refer you to all the previous replies you've had on that issue from me and anyone else.
I hope this is okay with you.
And Alegria - thanks for the words. They are appreciated.
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 08:40 am | | Karoline
Thank you for your comments on the ink. I am asking the questions because I didn’t realise that you were repeating Melvin Harris’s posts, but thought you said you had been doing some research of your own.
And I am trying to establish the facts. For example Dr. Baxendale is a professional forensic document examiner who gives expert testimony in court and who accepted a fee for his analysis of the ‘diary’. I wonder whether he was as incompetent as you (or Melvin) seem to imply, or whether there really isn't any conflict. You see, you wrote that Melvin was not able to find “any other modern manufacturer” who used nigrosine. Well, apart from the assumption inherent in this statement that the 'diary' is modern, what does 'modern' mean in this context? Did Melvin actually check ink manufacturers as "unmodern" as the 1940s? If he didn't then there is no conflict between Dr. Baxendale and Melvin is there? And if ink using nigrosine was manufactured in the 1940s and later, couldn't the forger have found a bottle of it somewhere? Or was Dr. Baxendale as wrong about nigrosine being used in inks in the 1940s as we was about it not being used in the 19th century and about the ink not containing iron? If he was, i think Shirley H. should ask for her money back!
As for Mr Voller's opinion that Diamine would have been blacker than the 'diary' ink, whilst it is true that Mr Voller offered no data to support his claim, as the chemist at Diamine surely his professional opinion carries some slight weight! And no offence to Nick Warren, but he is a surgeon and Mr Voller was the chemist who made the ink.
But was the sample examined by Nick Warren and which bronzed within three years a pre-1992 formulation or a post-1992 formulation Diamine ink? And what would the differences have been?
And it isn’t the solubility of the ink that I am discussing, but it’s blackness. Both Mr Voller and Dr. Baxendale observed that the ink wasn’t a pronounced black. And whilst a sun-ray lamp could have caused the fading - and do you think this is something Mike Barrett is likely to have known? – I understood that Mr Voller was impressed by the way in which the fading was irregular, sometimes differing from line to line. Would a sun-ray lamp have caused uniform fading?
And whilst I know that Mr Voller may have made some excessive claims, I am still interested in whether or not he was correct when he said that the irregular fading was a chemical reaction that could not be faked. Are you saying that he was wrong? You see, if I get the opportunity to ask him, I want to be very clear and precise. I don't want to misrepresent you.
Which is all I am trying to do, Karoline, because not many posts back you said that Mr. Voller found the ‘diary’ to be heavily bronzed when he examined it. It wasn’t. And you said that it was the bronzing that suggested age to Mr Voller. It wasn’t. And I don’t want to open old wounds, but as much as I appreciate your directions to Melvin’s old posts and as valuable as they certainly are, a number of his factual pronouncements have unfortunatly proven rather less than cast-iron, and new information comes to light, and Melvin may have revised his opinions or other people brought new information to light. I am just trying to establish precisely what experts have said, where they were wrong and why. As I have said, isolating the mistakes made and where imprecise statements have been made or inferences drawn is probably the only legitimate ground for continuing to research the ‘diary’. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 08:47 am | | Karoline
"You did it to Harris, you did it to Ashling, and a dozen others, and now you're doing it to me. You ask a question, I answer it. You just ask again. You make an accusation I prove it's false. You just make it again.
Go ahead, if that is what you want to do, though it doesn't seem the best use of anyone's time. But in future if you ask me a question already answered, I'll just refer you to all the previous replies you've had on that issue from me and anyone else.
I hope this is okay with you.
Yes, indeed it is. I think John Omlor would be very happy if you did that too. Maybe you'd like to start by pointing me to the post where you satisfactorilly explained why the idea that the text on Mike's word processor being there because he transcribed it from the 'diary' really is as stupid as suggesting that Elvis is alive and well. Do that, Karoline, and I might conceed that you have a point, otherwise I am sitting here re-reading all your original posts and unable to find any justification for what you have just written. But surely it would be ever so easy for you just to point out where I had been rude or offensive or ill-mannered in either of my posts. Or answer Martin. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 08:48 am | | Oh, and while you are at it, what did I do to Harris? Examples please!
And whilst I think of it, what bearing does Caz's remark made some time ago have on John Omlor's comments about the new sample of KAne's handwriting and your "consensus". Seems wholly irrelevant to me. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 09:29 am | | Morning all,
So, I see that after asking the question repeatedly, it has in fact been answered. That's a good thing. Sometimes persistence does pay off.
So the consensus that has apparently determined that the new Kane samples seem to indicate "that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written this diary," -- this "consensus" includes Karoline, Peter, RJ, and Melvin (and some alleged but unnamed others). Thank you for this interesting information, Karoline.
And Karoline, the reason this issue does have "something to do with you," is simply because you wrote in this public forum the following words:
"The consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?"
Once you wrote that, once you told us, here on a board discussing who wrote this diary, that there was a new consensus concerning who could have written this diary, this issue suddenly had something to do with you. And it is certainly not rude nor ill-mannered of anyone to read your words and to point this out and to ask, if you are going to come here and write such a claim, that you at least support it with evidence if you are going to include Kane's name in this sentence, whether you first introduced his name into this whole diary controversy or not.
And now you tell us, Karoline, that as far as you know:
"[M]ost people who had seen the writing agreed there was quite a similarity between it and the diary writing."
Again, you tell us not to take your word for it, but you write it as if it were true and therefore how can we be expected to ignore your words?
It has nothing to do even with the right to Kane's privacy. It has to do with fair play. You wrote the original sentence on the boards as if such a "consensus" had been established and was in some way meaningful. In fact, you wrote it responding to Paul's suggesting that the likely scenario of composition for certain people had changed. You were telling us at the time what it was "now."
Since you decided to write that ""the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary," it was neither ill-mannered nor rude to expect you to at least tell us who was in such a consensus.
Now you tell us fairly enough that the consensus should not be considered as in any way meaningful or as evidence of anything at all and that your original sentence, dropped in here by you as if it meant something and we should notice it (otherwise, why even write it), should be simply forgotten.
And then you write, telling us again:
"[M]ost people who had seen the writing agreed there was quite a similarity between it and the diary writing."
But then you say not to talk about it and that the writing should remain a non-issue.
Fine. I will forget you ever said it (twice). And I will assume then that we do not in fact have any meaningful consensus about anyone's handwriting and that it is not "very possible" now that Kane could have written this diary, and I will assume that we have no idea what the evidence shows and therefore I will also assume that no one will be mentioning Mr. Kane as any likely penman (since the evidence remains completely unavailable and undiscussable) or as in any way at all linked or "tied-in" with Mike Barrett (since there is no evidence for that claim whatsoever).
Funny thing about words, though. They are difficult to erase sometimes. It is going to be very difficult, after you come here and write "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary,'" to put the toothpaste back in the tube and to make us all forget that you told us this.
Perhaps you should not have written it.
--------------------------
Paul has properly made my response to Peter (who read something I wrote thanks to an angel of mercy who no doubt brought it to him late in the night in a sort of heavenly vision of stars and celestial dust). If the forgers did not at least make a trip to the library and find a microfilm machine and find local newspapers from the 19th Century and make sure that James Maybrick wasn't simply, physically, provably somewhere else on the four murder weekends in the fall of '88 and therefore simply and easily disqualified as even possibly being the Ripper, then they were taking an unthinkable risk for such a serious project. That would have been the very first thing that occurred to me -- could my man even have possibly been the Ripper, at least; could he have at least been there then? If they did do the research in the library newspapers of the 1880's to find this out, then we should consider that fact when we think about likely suspects. That seems fair.
------------------------------
Alegria,
No, Karoline perhaps did not bring Mr. Kane's name first to our attention. But it was Karoline who wrote that "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary." It is neither rude nor ill-mannered nor even anything less than proper and responsible to read these words and then to suggest that if they are simply dropped into this public forum without any further comment or information, this seems grossly unfair to the person whose name appears in the sentence and unfair to those of us who are reading here and are interested in who wrote this diary, and finally, simply an unfair thing to do, in general.
-------------------------
Finally, one thing that means nothing at all. I went to dinner last night with someone I had met only once before. They barely knew me. They asked me what I was up to these days and I began talking about this case. They had never heard of the diary or of Mike Barrett or of James Maybrick (like much of the world, I suspect). As a little thought exercise, I began describing the details of this case and discovered something. I made a very clear and convincing case to her that postulated Mike Barrett's complete complicity in this forgery and his likely knowing participation in the creation of this document. Then, using exactly the same pieces of available evidence and everything that we know so far including the science and the stories and the events, etc., I made a very clear and convincing case that Mike Barrett did not participate in the research or creation of this document and was not complicit in this forgery or knowledgeable as to its specific origins.
That seemed to me to suggest some things about the state of the evidence in this case.
Bye for now, and Happy Mother's Day everyone. I will be celebrating with my mom and the extended family.
--John
PS: Karoline now tells us, concerning how she acquired the Kane samples:
"It was not given me by the person who owns it, but passed on by someone else."
Does this sound familiar to anyone? 
-----------------------
PPS: [added a little later]: One last thing, Karoline: In your post above you write:
"I think the handwriting should remain outside the pool of evidence and a non-issue until the sample is made public."
If you really believe that, then surely you must also think it would be completely irresponsible if someone who has seen that handwriting came here into this public forum and announced to us all that:
"The consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary.'" |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 02:01 pm | | Dear Paul,
an answer to your repeated questions on the subject of the diary-ink and nigrosine:
As I told you in a previous post, nigrosine is quite commonly used in printing ink and stamp ink. But Harris has not been able to find any other manufacturer beside Diamine that used it in manuscript ink. [please see the Dissertations board for Harris's very full statement on this issue].
This alone would seem to make it quite likely that the diary-ink was Diamine ink
But more than this, it brings the big question - upon what did Voller base his conclusion that it wasn't?
The diary-ink and Diamine ink are both iron-gall inks and both use nigrosine as an additive. Chemically they must be almost identical. So, how could Voller be so sure they weren't the same?
Rather than simply repeating Voller's statement, we ought to be asking - upon what was it based?
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 13 May 2001 - 04:33 pm | | Karoline
You wrote that Melvin “has not managed to find any other modern manufacturer except Diamine who used nigrosine in a manuscript ink.” And in the post above you wrote that Melvin “has not been able to find any other manufacturer beside Diamine that used it in manuscript ink.”
There is a significant difference between these statements which I have highlighted. Melvin either found no modern manufacturer except Diamine or he found no manufacturer at any time except Diamine. Apart from the former leaving open the admittedly remote possibility someone might just have had a bottle of none Diamine nigrosine-containing ink, I am wondering how ill-informed Dr. Baxendale and Mr Voller were, for the former appears to have thought there were nigrosine-containing manuscript inks in the 1940s and the latter said, “Diamine manuscript ink is the only one of its kind [to use nigrosine] for many a long year…” which suggests that there were nigrosine-containing manuscript inks available until… when? But I’m not directing that question at you. I’m just drawing your attention to it and hoping that perhaps it might be resolved.
You also write: “Rather than simply repeating Voller's statement, we ought to be asking - upon what was it based?” But I believe that I have answered that question for you several times now: it was the opacity, colour and irregular fading of the ink that immediately told him that it wasn’t Diamine.
I understand that on being shown the ‘diary’ Mr Voller said: “That is not Diamine manuscript ink. What is conclusive is the physical appearance of it. If this were Diamine manuscript ink or at least Diamine ink of recent manufacture, that is to say within the last 20 to 30 years, it would be blacker and more opaque than this. The opacity of this is very much poorer that one would have from Diamine manuscript ink, even if it were diluted. You see, dilution would simply not produce this sort of effect. Those lines that are more legible such as here – you are getting close to the opacity one would expect from Diamine manuscript ink, but the colour isn’t right. The fading that’s occurred is quite characteristic of permanent manuscript inks of some considerable age. They don’t fade evenly; you get two consecutive lines of writing, one of which remains quite legible and one fades badly. The kind of process that’s involved is not fully understood.”
He was, I understand, quite emphatic. |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 03:13 am | | So, it appears that Voller was not basing his view on any scientific observation, but simply on his subjective impression that the diary-ink was not opaque enough to be Diamine ink.
Now, as I understand it, Voller later amended these views, didn't he? But I don't think you quote those amendments.
I can't find the exact words of this amendment anywhere on the Casebook. Would you have ever been sent them Paul? Could you quote them here?
And what does Voller mean by "fading"? I presume he's referring to bronzing? Does his full report make that clear?
Actually, do you have a copy of Voller's full original comments? And if so could you post them here - as well as his later amendments?
(I am, by the way, checking with Harris on what he meant about the precise availability of MS ink containing nigrosine)
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 04:08 am | | Hello Karoline
Yes, he based his conclusions on a subjective impression, but as the man who made the ink I think it might be fair to describe it as ‘informed opinion’ don’t you? And naked-eye evaluation by a knowledgeable person is valid is it not?
I don’t possess any amendment of his views and only know of the letter to Melvin in which he said that a sunray lamp could have artificially aged the document (Melvin has elsewhere said that the same aging process could have been achieved in an oven). This is in itself intriguing as it would suggest a further bit of sophisticated knowledge on behalf of the forger. Do you think it suggests that the ‘diary’ wasn’t penned after the maroon diary proved unsuitable?
No, I don’t think Mr. Voller meant bronzing when he spoke about fading. He mentioned the mild bronzing later as a quite different phenomenon. When he spoke of fading he appears to have meant a loss of vibrancy in the colour. I think his meaning is quite clear in the quote I provided, and the interesting part is that “The fading that’s occurred is quite characteristic of permanent manuscript inks of some considerable age. They don’t fade evenly; you get two consecutive lines of writing, one of which remains quite legible and one fades badly.”
This is interesting, I think, for two reasons. One is that Mr Voller does appear to be aware of how manuscript inks age (which might to challenge your claim that he was unaware of how quickly his own ink would bronze) and because I am not sure whether a sunray lamp would cause this lack of uniformity.
I would be happy to provided Mr. Voller's report, but whilst I think it is acceptable to quote from it in part, to obtain the whole thing you should ask the owner. And the owner is Shirley Harrison.
I took a look at Melvin's “Fact File For the Perplexed” where he discusses the ink in depth, but he seems only to have said: “Nigrosine itself, though little used in writing inks, was used in inks in the Victorian era, so its presence presented no problems.” As you can see, he says it was used in inks in the Victorian times but was otherwise “little used in writing inks”. And a little later he wrote of Diamin’es use of nigrosine: “This was unusual and seemed to be the only known writing ink around using Nigrosine (it was normally used in stamp-pad inks, embossing inks and copying inks)”.
I can only find Melvin saying that “seemed to be the only known writing ink around”, which doesn’t seem to suggest extensive research and seems also to restrict his research to inks available in the mid-1990s. His words here don’t allow anything approaching the emphatic interpretations you have stated, namely that Melvin “has not managed to find any other modern manufacturer except Diamine who used nigrosine in a manuscript ink” or that Melvin “has not been able to find any other manufacturer beside Diamine that used it in manuscript ink”, so I assume that you made these comments based on another document of Melvins. I thank you for checking with Melvin on what he meant and I hope it doesn’t prevail upon his time too greatly, but while we await his reply I wonder if you would be kind enough to direct me to the actual post you consulted for the above detail. Thanks. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 08:49 am | | Hello Paul and Karoline,
A thought or two on the science...
Karoline suggested that we check out Melvin's Casebook articles on all of this. I have done that (although perhaps not completely, I readily admit, and so I remain open to any relevant passages being cited to clarify things for me).
Karoline, I see many places where Melvin carefully uses the science to demonstrate that, as he interprets the data, this book could not be authentic nor an old forgery but is clearly a recent production.
I also see many places where he agrees with what RJ Palmer wrote here recently, that the dating of ink on paper remains inexact and certainly cannot pin down within a very specific time frame exactly when any document was written (I can cite both Melvin and RJ specifically on this inevitable inexactness.) As RJ put it on Saturday:
"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."
Melvin says the same thing several times in his work on the Casebook.
What I cannot find, however, and maybe Karoline can help me locate it, is where Melvin concludes finally or says in any definite and positive way that "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." Karoline said this on Saturday.
Perhaps Melvin has also made such a clear and specific final conclusion about the ink being on the page "almost no time at all" in April of 1992. I am not sure. I will keep looking. If so, it would seem to contradict his earlier stated opinion about the inexactness of dating inks. Or perhaps not.
But I do have a question. I will ask it carefully below.
--------------------------------
Now, since Karoline has said she will answer my questions or else direct me to where she has already answered them, I will ask her a scientific one again.
I will go very slowly. I am trying to understand this.
Karoline, on Saturday, you wrote:
"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."
OK. Let me offer the very simplest and least rigorous interpretation of his words possible. I know, I'll just quote him. First of all, Easthaugh clearly said that if the ink had been on the page for less than a few years he would have been able to see some things and do some things concerning determining its age.
He could not see or do those things when he analyzed the ink.
Therefore the ink had to have been on the page at least a few years.
This was in 1992.
That's what he said.
But, to be more precise, here are Easthaugh's exact words. No too-literal interpretation of them or overly rigorous reading of them, just the words themselves as he wrote them.
Easthaugh wrote:
"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."
Karoline, Easthaugh has written that after a few years we could not adequately differentiate inks of quite dissimilar age.
That's what he said.
He also said that in this case, we could not adequately differentiate inks of a quite dissimilar age.
Therefore, Karoline, Dr. Easthaugh has told us, all by himself, without us having to do any interpretation at all that the ink has clearly been on this paper at least a few years.
Easthaugh wrote:
"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?
Now, Karoline, you claim that:
"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."
So Dr. Easthaugh must be wrong, Karoline.
That is the only way you can be right, here.
Karoline, it's not too-literal to suggest that Easthaugh at the very least claimed that if the ink was newer than a few years old he could have seen certain things and done certain things. He could not see or do those things, so the ink must not have been newer than a few years old in 1992.
Therefore, he does claim that the ink was at least a few years old in 1992.
You suggest that in 1992 it had been on the paper almost no time at all.
You can't both be correct (unless "almost no time at all" means the same thing as "at least a few years"), and we are not simply misreading the Dr. or being too literal here, now. This is what he said, even roughly and even giving you the most lenient and general interpretation of his words possible, as I demonstrate clearly above.
He says, "We still cannot properly distinguish on this basis whether the ink is Victorian, because after a few years, we could not adequately differentiate inks of quite dissimilar age anyway."
You say, the ink was there "almost no time at all," in 1992.
If you were right, then Easthaugh would have been able to "adequately differentiate inks of quite dissimilar age" here (because, if you are right, it would have not then been "after a few years" -- Easthaugh would not even have had to write the phrase "after a few years" about this ink if you were right).
You cannot both be right, under any interpretation of his words whatsoever.
Either you are wrong about the ink being there almost no time at all or Dr. Easthaugh is wrong about being unable to differentiate between inks of dissimliar age, because this ink has already been there at least a few years.
Either you are wrong or Dr. Easthaugh is wrong.
Which is it, Karoline?
Thanks, in advance, for answering,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 01:37 pm | | Hello All,
Just catching up with all the posts over the weekend – phew!
Hi RJ,
In your post of Saturday, May 12, 2001 – 12:52pm, you wrote:
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.
According to the Blake edition of Shirley’s book, Baxendale reported, in July/August 1992: ‘The Diary ink is soluble. The Diary ink contains a synthetic dye of the nigrosine type that was not available in Victorian times. There is no iron.’
Eastaugh reported, in October 1992 (two to three months later - not a year later, as you suggest): ‘The Diary ink contains iron’, and: ‘There is no nigrosine.’
Voller, in October 1995, stated: ‘The dyestuff here is clearly nigrosine… I have seen a considerable number of documents like that where there has been very little bronzing…’, and: ‘…this is definitely not Diamine Manuscript ink…’
So you pays your money RJ…. How can any of we non-scientists pick and choose from these three with any real confidence, since they all appear to be contradicting each other, and may all contain different errors regarding the diary ink’s basic ingredients, and when they first became available etc? How have you decided that Baxendale is right to cast doubt on Eastaugh? I certainly don’t know enough to decide. Of course, Eastaugh could have been wrong to consider that the ink had already been on the paper too long, by October 1992, for him to follow it as it dried. But how do we judge the judges?
You wrote:
I'd like to see a professional analysis of AG's, MB's, and GK's handwriting; unfortunately, it is not within my power.
I’m sorry, RJ, but it just seems mighty convenient that accusatory statements such as Karoline's, "The consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'" can be made here because they come with built-in excuses (of the ‘nothing to do with me’ variety) for not having to back them up. It’s bound to arouse suspicions, but if you can’t see that for yourself, there doesn’t seem any point in me trying to explain it to you. You yourself say: I'd like to see a professional analysis of AG's, MB's, and GK's handwriting; unfortunately, it is not within my power. But you appear to dismiss this very easily, as if you accept, without the slightest feeling of disquiet, that whoever owns, or has responsibility for the larger sample of Kane’s writing must have decent motives for all this secrecy and non-disclosure, even while he/she is allowing it to be circulated among certain individuals, who are not so shy about voicing their own suspicions on these public boards. Does the person who is jealously guarding the larger Kane sample know what’s being said on these boards? If so, that person cannot claim to have no responsibility. And if not, why not? This is the only person who can say yea or nay to my offer to pay for Sue Iremonger’s services, surely? Isn’t there such a thing as collective responsibility here?
Hi Karoline,
In your post of Sunday, May 13, 2001 – 06:12 am, you quoted Melvin Harris thus:
"And I have a letter here from [Voller] in which he regrets that, in October 1995, he failed to mention that the ink could have been artificially aged by something as simple as a sunray lamp"
What Melvin failed to mention was that Voller, according to Shirley Harrison, ‘considered the suggestion’ that the ink could have been artificially aged by a ‘hand-held sun ray lamp’, but qualified any such possibility by stating that ‘any exposure to U.V. radiation that was harsh enough to simulate a century’s worth of natural fading would also have a savage bleaching effect on the paper.’
In your post of Sunday, May 13, 2001 – 08:36 am, you wrote:
‘It was Caroline M. who accused me of behaving "disgustingly” by as she put it "fingering” Kane in public.’
What I actually wrote was this:
‘So what you are quite definitely saying is that you will go on fingering Kane in public as a likely forger, and that it’s not your fault that your hands are tied when it comes to producing a shred of evidence to back up your suspicions.’
And:
‘…I went away from the boards yesterday feeling fairly disgusted by what I was reading.’
Later, I wrote that I would apologise for my feelings of disgust, if you were to tell me that you had seen evidence that showed Mike knew of Kane’s existence in March 1992, when you made the statement about Kane being ‘a known associate of the Barretts’.
Your response, after John and I had asked you several times if you could back up this particular statement, was to claim that it had been some sort of slip of the pen.
So it would obviously be really helpful to everyone, including yourself, if you could manage to quote people’s words directly in future. It will also help your own credibility and save you time, if you learn to copy and paste, instead of paraphrasing, with the inherent risks of making balls-ups. The time saved may also help prevent further thoughtless slips of the pen.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 02:31 pm | | "What Melvin failed to mention was that Voller, according to Shirley Harrison, ‘considered the suggestion’ that the ink could have been artificially aged by a ‘hand-held sun ray lamp’, but qualified any such possibility by stating that ‘any exposure to U.V. radiation that was harsh enough to simulate a century’s worth of natural fading would also have a savage bleaching effect on the paper.’"
Ah. That does seem to put a slightly different complexion on things doesn't it. How do you interpret that, Karoline?
And Karoline, do I therefore take it that nobody has actually ever accused you of being the first person to name Kane on the Message Boards? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 10:15 pm | | John, Caz, Paul--I think you'll find that Melvin had qualified his statements about determining the age of ink by stating the importance of the ink being tested during the first 18 months, before oxidation greatly complicates matters. Because of the suspicious nature of the document, testing should have been rigourously pursued during the initial months. As Harris states, he, Baxendale, Kurantz, Rendell, and others with some knowledge of the behavior of inks all felt that the writing had been put on the paper recently. Voller made his observations some three years later. Voller claimed the ink had nigrosine. Tests confirmed this. If Baxendale, Kurantz, and the other experts were correct, then the ink was indeed Diamine and put on the paper very recently indeed. THIS AGREES WITH THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE. For Caz & others who seem to accept Mr. Vollers views, then I assume they believe that the ink is 90+ years old. I would humbly ask how the writer(s) of the diary managed to gain access to a police list that wasn't made public until the late 1980s? I would be most interested in hearing the answer. Considering there is no believable provenance, and the text of the diary has many modern elements, isn't the obvious answer that the diary was written very recently indeed when it first appeared back in 1992?
Caz--why exactly you are choosing to question me about Kane's writing, I don't know. If you could please point out where I have given some strong opinion about his handwriting or have even acknowledge that I have seen it, other than the brief examples posted here, I'd be happy to make a retraction. I'm undecided, and would prefer an expert opinion.
PS. I did realize I goofed on the 'one year' elapsing between Baxendale & Eastaugh, but hadn't taken the time to go back to correct. Thanks for that. I readily admit my knowledge of ink is minimal. In looking at the evidence given in Harrison's books & in Melvin's articles, I have come to the conclusion that the ink must have been recently applied, but will explain my opinion in more detail later. Just as a matter of 'orderliness', I would suggest perhaps that we create a new board for forensice discussions, as we have several conversations going on here at once, and it's becoming somewhat confused.
Best wishes, RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 10:34 pm | | Hi RJ,
A new board for Ink and Forensics is fine with me. But in the meantime, you wrote the following sentence:
"As Harris states, he, Baxendale, Kurantz, Rendell, and others with some knowledge of the behavior of inks all felt that the writing had been put on the paper recently."
What counts as "recently" here?
Would Easthaugh's conclusion that the ink had been on the paper for at least a few years by 1992 count as "recently?"
And, by the way, didn't he see the ink in the same time frame as the experts you cite? And he concluded, as I demonstrated above, that it had been there for at least a few years.
Here's my question, RJ:
Putting aside the textual evidence for a moment, does the ink itself tell us that it clearly could only have been applied after 1990, or does it tell us that it was clearly applied sometime between 1980 and 1989 (the latest date for Easthaugh to be right), or does it tell us that it could have been put on the paper anytime between 1980 and 1992. You yourself insisted this was not an exact science and that there was no reliable way to pin down when ink was put on paper with great specificity. This would suggest that the last option is the most likely.
So can just the ink tests and science itself tell us clearly and reliably whether this ink was put on this paper in 1991 rather than 1988, for instance?
And if Melvin has concluded that this ink must have been put on some time after 1991, that is, less that a year before it came to Doreen's, and definitely not before 1991, not even 1989, can you tell me where he writes this specifically, because I could not find it on my first attempt?
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 12:54 am | | Hi RJ
I have already told you that the police list – if you are referring to the Eddowes inquest papers – seem to have been available in the 1930s. Do you have evidence that disputes this? Also, if I should turn out that the ink was indeed put on the paper before 1987, we would then have to address the conflicts presented by the internal evidence. But this is neither here nor there as far as your question is concerned because I do not believe that the writing was 90 or more years old. I don’t have a belief. I don’t know enough about the “science” to believe anything one way or another.
However, I am interested in whether the ink was put on the paper (a) during the first half of 1992, (b) between mid-1989 and mid-1992, or (c) before mid-1989.
Depending on which of these alternatives looks most likely (if such precision is possible) will enable certain deductions. If the ink was put on the page before 1992 then the scrapbook was not bought after the maroon diary proved unsuitable and the argument that the maroon diary points to Mike’s authorship of the ‘diary’ is probably not valid.
Obviously, if the ink was put on the paper before mid-1989, the Crashaw quote could not have come from Mike’s copy of the Sphere book.
But on top of all this, I believe that it is important to find out exactly what mistakes were made, when and why, so that anyone investigating a document like this in the future won’t make the same mistakes again. Thus, I am interested in establishing what the “scientists” thought and why.
I’m sure Caz will answer for herself, but I suspect that Caz is questioning you about the Kane handwriting because Karoline included you among those who she thought had been sent the new handwriting samples and that you were one of the “consensus” who agreed "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?" (The words in inverted commas as Karoline’s). |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 06:25 am | | Hi, RJP
Did Melvin actually see the diary within the first 18 months of its emerging? Did he even see it before Alex Voller had been shown it? If he did, I'm almost certain there would have been nothing like a further 18 month gap before Alex saw it.
And isn't the statement 'tests confirmed' this [that the ink contained nigrosine] a tendentious acceptance of the test that suited that conclusion and refusal to credit the counter claim of an equally reputable laboratory that its tests had found the opposite?
Unlike John, I haven't read all Melvin's screeds on the topic - (I will come to them, in my trawl across the boards) - but I wonder whether he is suffering mild accidental distortion through your paraphrase, or whether his scholarship, which has so impressed Karoline, must be questioned for claiming reasonable opinions he has reached as scientifically established facts.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 10:59 am | | Hi RJ,
Why do you insist on assuming that I ‘accept Mr. Voller’s views’ and that I ‘believe that the ink is 90+ years old’? I don’t know how many more times you expect me to repeat that I do not totally accept or reject any of the scientific views, nor do I need to hold rigid beliefs, nor will I be attaching myself to ‘obvious’ answers, just to please those who find my refusal to do so exasperating – sorry!
I am curious to know why anyone should be interested in hearing or discussing the various expert opinions on the age of the diary ink, if they have already concluded, on textual evidence and other factors, like no believable provenance, that the document couldn’t have been created much before 1992. The ‘obvious answer’ is that all those scientists who dared to suggest the ink showed signs of having been on the paper for much more than a fortnight must be talking out of their arses. Perhaps we really ought to abandon the science for now, unless we are all prepared to look at all the reports totally objectively, and reserve judgement on a subject that none of us really appear qualified to wax lyrical about.
RJ, I am interested in your views, but not on Kane’s handwriting sample, of which, as Karoline has stated, she only thinks you’ve been sent a copy. (I’m sorry, but like you, I ‘would prefer an expert opinion’ on whether or not Mr. Kane could have penned the diary.) You have always struck me as having good principles, so I am very interested in your views on the ethical question here. Whoever has allowed copies of the sample to circulate among certain posters to these boards is, for some reason (and for all I know the reason itself might be perfectly justified), not responding to my offer to fund a professional analysis, or, if you like, to your own stated preference for an expert opinion, or to Karoline’s request to make the sample public. But that person is surely being kept informed about all that is being said here, including the suspicions that are being aired in public about Kane being the possible penman. Do you think it was right and proper for anyone to start airing such suspicions, at a time when they didn’t know whether or not the guardian of the sample would, or even could, play ball? And do you think it was right and proper to continue to talk about such ‘consensus’ opinions, once it became apparent that, for whatever reason, the evidence was not about to be made available for all to see, or for an analysis to be carried out? I’d seriously appreciate your thoughts.
I can hardly believe you would condone the suspicion against Kane being aired in public yet again by Karoline, followed not half an hour later by her opinion that the issue ‘be dropped until either the man is dead or the evidence is in the public arena.’ Excuse me while I try not to throw up again.
Caz |
|
|
|
|
