|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 25, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Forensic Evidence:
Archive through May 25, 2001
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 09:00 am |        | here is a new "forensic" discussion topic as RJ suggested.
To begin with just a quick question.
Will Caroline, or anyone please quote me the reports in which Baxendale says "there is no iron" and Eastaugh says "there is no nigrosine"
is it claimed that these are the gentlemen's own words?
Karoline |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 10:07 am | | Hi Karoline,
Extract from Fax to Robert Smith, Fax No. 071-278-1677
from Document Evidence, Independent Forensic Document Examiners, 230 Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1AY.
Ref: 107/92-3.
Report by David Baxendale
pp.2-3 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. There is no sign of such a brown colour.
1 July 1992.
----------------------------------
An additional report, same ref no., dated 9 July 1992, adds:
The chromatogram showed only a partial separation: much of the ink remained on the baseline but there was a strip f partially resolved coloured components, and a few colourless fluorescent spots. This pattern is characteristic of inks based on a synthetic dye called nigrosine, which is a complex mixture of substances, but one which has been used in many inks [SIC! Should it be 'has not been used? But see below*], at least since the 1940s. There was nothing to suggest the presence of iron.
---------------------------------
'There is no iron' is, I assume, an over-forceful restatement of the conclusion apparently presented in these paragraphs. Possibly someone misread the first as saying 'obviously not' rather than 'not obviously'. I would have thought a non-scientist reasonable in deducing that the statement 'there was nothing to suggest the presence of iron' was so placed in the paragraph as to give rise to the inference that this was the result of the chromatogram. I'm not a scientist myself, and have no idea whether iron would be expected to show up in the chromatogram, or how conclusive this would be.
* The odd remark on nigrosine, which has only just struck me and seems to be in complete contrast to Melvin Harris's belief that nigrosine's use was virtually confined to typewriters ribbons, boot polish and the like after 1940, may actually be what Baxendale intended, as his Summary and Conclusion includes the following:
----------------------------------
(2) Synthetic dyestuffs did not become common in inks until after the second world war. They may have been used earlier, (reliable information on this is scarce), but not before the first world war.
In my opinion, therefore, the diary does not date from 1889. An exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945.
-------------------------------
Now, since Shirley's establishing that nigrosine was patented in the 1860s has been hailed as a triumph overturning Baxendale's anti-Diary conclusions, but anti-Diarists now seem to want to reinstate parts of Baxendale that seem to them both error-free and indicative of recent manufacture, you may understand why I steer clear of the use of the scientific experts' reports in making my own decisions about the diary! Those who are citing them in support of their positions seem to be tendentiously selective.
I'm sorry I don't have a copy of Nick Eastaugh's original report.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 10:28 am | | Hello Karoline
Caroline gave the source in her post as "the Blake edition of Shirley’s book", from which she evidently directly quoted. The page number is 365. Shirley Harrison is the person to address if you want to know her source for the information, but it appears to be a paraphrase of what was said in respective reports - for example, Nick Eastaugh wrote "Several samples of the ink of the diary were taken and tested using reagents such as ammonia and concentrated sulphuric acid. Little reaction was observed, suggesting that the ink is not based on a synthetic dyestuff." (s. report dated 2 October 1992) Nigrosine is, I understand, a synthetic dystuff. Mr Eastaugh did observe, however, that such a dyestuff could have been present in levels lower than his equipment could detect.
In the meantime there is a small clutch of unanswered questions awaiting your attention. If you could find an opportunity to address these sometime it would be appreciated. Thanks. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 10:42 am | | Hi Karoline, Martin, Paul,
As Paul has kindly mentioned, I was quoting from the Blake edition of Shirley's book, regarding the Baxendale and Eastaugh reports. (And yes, page 365 will give you all the details, Karoline.)
Thanks Martin, for the extra info.
A couple of quick questions for Karoline, if I may. You stated in an earlier post that 'Tests done on samples of Diamine iron gall MS ink show that it bronzes about three years after being applied to paper.'
Could you tell me your source for the information that Diamine (which you suspect was used for the diary) is an iron gall ink? And could you also tell me if anyone else, apart from Alec Voller, didn't think the diary ink was Diamine?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:37 pm | | Karoline,
Once again you have neither answered me nor sent me to where you have answered me before.
Since we have a new board here, specifically on this topic, I'll ask you the question here, once more, and hope to get a careful response.
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."
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: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 03:48 am | | Martin,
many thanks for that beautifully scholarly and full reply - much useful information therein, which I will try to put to good use..
John,
Firstly - you aren't a congressional committee and have no right to subpoena people and demand answers. So a little politeness wouldn't come amiss.
Secondly, try and understand I have other things to do. Yesterday and today, I have been trying to ready an article for publication, as well as finding the time to type up all Harris's stuff.
In additon I've been trying to pull together all the data to get the forensic picture finally clear and concise. This takes some time. I'll try and answer in full later today. In the meantime please don't keep posting those long demands as you did before.
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 04:33 am | | With respect, Karoline, if you don't answer the questions put to you that arise from statements you have made, what is the point of posting in the first place? As interesting as some of your opinions are, sometimes a little clarification and expansion is required.
Also, it would appear that you have falsely accused Caroline of accusing you of 'recently' introducing Kane's name to the Message Boards. If Caroline didn't do that, don't you think some sort of comment is warranted? To say nothing of of your observation on Caroline's point about a sunray lamp bleaching the paper. I do understand that you are busy - we all are - but it might be profitable for the sake of harmony if you answered the questions put to you.
(And I have asked very nicely, with pleases and thankyous, for you to point me in the direction of Melvin's post from which you took your statement about ink manufacturers and nigrosine.) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 05:13 am | | Hi Paul,
I don't mind in the least if Karoline has neither the time nor the inclination to comment on what she has or hasn't accused me of. I'm pretty sure all those reading the boards have enough brain power to work out exactly where she has been mangling people's words by not quoting directly, or paraphrasing extremely poorly or selectively.
In other words, her words - or lack of them - speak volumes for themselves. If our attempts to get her to answer promptly, clarify or correct stuff she has written, for whatever reason fail, at least she can't say we didn't try to get her to help herself.
All the while an answer on the sunray lamp problem is not forthcoming, we can, I suppose, assume that Voller's point about 'savage bleaching' has been accepted? And that Melvin's original quote has been ditched by Karoline as non-evidence for the forgers giving the ink a nice all-over tan?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 07:23 am | | Hi Karoline,
Sorry if my "demands" (which are actually a series of careful questions, four posts above) seem congressional-committee like or rude or insistent. They weren't at first, I originally asked them on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 12:19 pm, but after not receiving any response at all, even after asking them a second time, and after seeing you respond to Paul and promise to answer any question or else refer us to where you already had, and after seeing you post other things (at least fourteen other posts since I first asked, by my count), and even start a new board, I just figured I should ask once again, here.
I'll look forward to your response "in full" to my post which remains just above yours, later today, and after that I promise not to ask those specific questions anymore.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 09:35 am | | I've been doing a lot of close examination of the various reports, and this is an overview of the data we have so far.
I'll go on later to deal with any specific questions, though I think many of them will actually be addressed by the clarifications here.
I've also got the last portion of Harris's post to add which also probably will clarify some things on the forensic issue.
---------------
Looking over the scientific evidence, it becomes clear that many of the apparent or claimed "contradictions" between the various scientific analyses are not actually contradictions at all. They are simply misreadings or misquotings of the original data, which then get preserved as if they were facts.
If we go back to the basic test results, many of these seeming "contradictions" completely disappear.
Let me give you an example from Caroline M's recent post.
Caroline wrote:
"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.’"
But, of course, these quoted words "there is no iron" are not Baxendale's, they are Harrison's.
If we go back to Baxendale's original report, most helpfully posted here yesterday by Martin F. we find these are his actual words on the subject of iron:
"There is nothing to suggest the presence of iron", and "it is not obviously an iron-based ink....there is no sign of such a brown colour"
Now, Baxendale subsequently wrote to Harris to make it clear that he made this above statement on an optical examination alone, based on the absence of bronzing, and stated that the first line quoted above should have read;
"There is nothing to suggest the presence of oxidised iron"
Baxendale further wrote:
"The omission of that one word ['oxidised'] caused some misunderstanding".
In fact, Baxendale never did any tests for the presence of iron. He did not claim and never meant it to be understood that there was "no iron" in the ink.
All he did was look at the ink and observe the absence of the bronzing which would have been expected in an iron--based ink of any age.
So, the words "there is no iron" actually represent a no doubt accidental but very serious distortion of his original words and even more of the meaning behind his word, which has had huge repercussions for our understanding of the data.
Caroline M. then goes on to refer to Eastaugh's report, which she claims "contradicts" Baxendale's:
"Eastaugh reported, in October 1992 : ‘The Diary ink
contains iron’, and: ‘There is no nigrosine.’"
Again,as we see, the words "there is no nigrosine" are not Eastaugh's - they are Harrison's.
Eastaugh never claimed there was "no nigrosine" in the ink. What he claimed was that the ink was not based on nigrosine, which is quite a different thing.
Let me try and explain the difference between these two concepts:
Basically there are two different uses of nigrosine in ink-manufacture:
1. as what is called a "sighting colour" in iron-gall inks
2. as the actual basis of a synthetic ink in its own right.
Eastaugh's test disproved the second but not the first of these.
He showed the diary-ink was an iron-based ink, not a synthetic nigrosine-based ink. But he did not show, or claim to show that the ink had no nigrosine in it as a sighting colour
On the contrary, his test results show that there was sodium present in the ink in large amounts, and sodium is a constituent of nigrosine
Bottom line is, Eastaugh's test confirms the diary-ink was an iron-based ink and also shows the presence of sodium which supports Baxendale's finding of nigrosine.
Rather than conflicting, these two reports actually support and complement each other.
Then Caroline quotes Voller:
"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…’"
Again, Voller's observations that the diary-ink is an iron-gall ink with nigrosine supports the observations of both Baxendale and Eastaugh.
Drawing all three commentaries together: we have a consensus from the three chemists:
Nigrosine
Both Baxendale and Voller identify the ink as containing nigrosine.
Eastaugh's tests do not (as has often been claimed) show there is "no nigrosine" in the ink, indeed they show the presence of large amounts of sodium, which is an element in nigrosine.
So we have no actual contradiction here at all.
Iron
Both Eastaugh and Voller identify the ink as being iron-based.
Baxendale does not claim "there is no iron". He merly observes the absence of bronzing, which indicates the ink cannot be old (oxidised) iron ink.
So, in fact, these tests vindicate the scientific method quite well. They produce a good consistency in favour of an iron-based ink, containing nigrosine as a sighting agent.
I'll go on to look at the various reports' other conclusions a little later, and also to answer specific questions not covered so far.
Does anyone feel this has helped clarify things thus far?
For those who wish to check the above data for themselves see:
1. The Eastaugh test results, published here on the "Dissertations" site.
2. The full text of the Baxendale report, with additional letter to Melvin Harris
I don't know if the second of these is published anywhere yet. In my view it should be.
K |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 09:55 am | | Karoline,
Concerning questions not covered so far...
Please see my post asking a series of questions you have not addressed at all. It remains six posts up. I first asked them last Saturday.
But perhaps the answers are coming.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:50 am | | | Er, did you find that material from Melvin, Karoline, about Nigrosine? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:16 am | | “In fact, Baxendale never did any tests for the presence of iron. He did not claim and never meant it to be understood that there was "no iron" in the ink. All he did was look at the ink and observe the absence of the bronzing which would have been expected in an iron--based ink of any age. So, the words "there is no iron" actually represent a no doubt accidental but very serious distortion of his original words and even more of the meaning behind his word, which has had huge repercussions for our understanding of the data.”
1 July 1992
"The ink is generally dark grey in colour and is not obviously an iron-based ink. Most inks in the late nineteenth century were based on iron as a main ingredient, and such inks tends to change to a brown colour with age. There is no sign of such a brown colour."
9 July 1992 David Baxendale wrote that he “examined the ink used for the Diary by the technique of Thin Layer Chromatography…The ink of the diary was readily available in the extractant and only a small amount of insoluble black residue was left on the paper. The chromatogram showed only a partial separation: much of the ink remained on the basline but there was a strip of partially resolved coloured components, and a few colourless fluorescent spots. This pattern is characteristic of inks based on a synthentic dye called nigrosine, which is a complex mixture of substances, but one which has been used in many inks, at least since the 1940s. There was nothing to suggest the presence of iron.
Well, talking about Thin Layer Chromatography and coming right out and saying twice that there was nothing to suggest it was and that it was not obviously an iron-based ink, I can only wonder why Shirley ever thought he was saying the ink didn't contain iron!
If I had suffered a conviction on scientific evidence, I think I'd be seriously looking at an appeal right now! |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:30 pm | | Paul,
I'm not interested in blaming Harrison or anyone else for misunderstanding Baxendale. God, it's easily done I'm sure.
We all agree that Baxendale's original wording was wrong. He said so himself. He explained that he ought to have added the word "oxidised" before the word "iron".
Since he's made this clear there's not much point in pretending he hasn't (though I gather it is your preferred method of dealing with all unwelcome information).
Baxendale has said he did not intend to convey the impression there was no iron in the ink.
So we have to take him at his word.
Re. your nigrosine question:
Thereis some information about the availability of nigrosine inks on the Casebook. Voller also explained that his was the only firm in the 1970s making MS ink containing nigrosine as a sighting colour. Harris has also given me additional material on this subject - which (as I've said) I will post in due course.
If you are unduly anxious on the matter, perhaps in the meantime you could contact Harris directly?
And thanks to both you and Mr O for the great appreciation shown for the work I've done so far.
Your good grace and great charm no doubt win you many friends and admirers.
K |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:39 pm | | This is the last part of Harris's post:
From Melvin Harris
Re: the Eastaugh test:
Robert Smith claims that:
"if the ink had been applied to the paper after 1987-89, Dr. Eastaugh would have been able to reveal the diary as a fake"
Well, I have talked to Nick Eastaugh today and he has two points to make.
1. If anyone wishes to quote him, let them also make sure that the complete texts of his comments are provided as well. Otherwise the exact meaning of his words could easily be misunderstood.
2. In speaking of dating by solubility tests he is indentifying techniques that are not able to offer exact results. This is indicated by the words "suggests" and "perhaps".
Now the tests he mentioned involved the use of reference samples, but the unknown factors in any tests using non-reference samples are the storage conditions; the exposure of the writing to light, heat and damp and the nature of the paper involved. In the case of the Diary we are dealing with a heavy paper which takes up ink in a very different fashion from the writing papers used in the reference samples. And it will interact differently.
In brief, Dr. Eastaugh could not have testified that the ink on the Diary paper had not been put there after 1989, because the tests were not exact enough to allow for such certitude. This is Smith's misunderstanding, or wishful thinking.
In 1994 I dealt with Smith's claims that a hoaxer would have to be (among other things):
"qualified in ink and paper chemistry, be a crime historian who had acquired intimate knowledge, well beyond the accessible published accounts of two famous Victorian cases, and have a rare and precise knowledge of the physical and psychological effects of arsenic addiction"
These fallacies have all been refuted in detail on the net but Robert seems to have missed the texts, so I suggest he starts with my "New Hoax Findings", of Jan. 22 2000, before looking at the much more detailed earlier stuff.
And since he is still repeating the nonsense about Mary Kelly's heart, let him read p. 198 of my "True Face" where that nonsense was first identified - so well identified in fact that Mrs Harrison altered her paperback to bring it in line with my corrections. Thus Robert is some seven years behind his own author!
I further advise him to read the material I have placed on the watch tests. Once he has read them perhaps he could explain to us all why he didn't reveal the full text of those reports?
Out of kindness I will skate over the many other flaws in Robert's past actions, But I advise him to read more cautiously before he makes any further comments.
And yes, I have often seen seemingly Vicrtorian scrapbooks, ledgers, diaries etc. with just a few pages used up.
That is why I made my forecast before I had even been told about the nature of the diary.But maybe this is because I have been on the hunt for longer.
Robert will appreciate the hunting fields if I mention that, beginning in 1963, i used to visit Bermondsey, Portobello, Church Street, Bell Street and Islington Markets on a weekly basis
Melvin |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:41 pm | | "Since he's made this clear there's not much point in pretending he hasn't (though I gather it is your preferred method of dealing with all unwelcome information).
Far from it, Karoline. Far from it. And isn't it a pity that you can be so rude.
"If you are unduly anxious on the matter, perhaps in the meantime you could contact Harris directly?"
Ah, so you can't point me in the direction of where melvin actually said what you claimed he said. Okay. No problem. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:44 pm | | Karoline,
If I am "Mr. O," please be assured that I do appreciate your work in this area. That is why I am looking forward to some sort of specific and detailed answer or two to my careful questions above, which you still have not addressed at all.
They are now an even 10 posts above, still dated Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - 03:37 pm, although they were first asked here back on last Saturday.
Thanks for getting to them at some point in your work, when the time allows.
In appreciation,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:44 pm | | Melvin Harris writes:
"In brief, Dr. Eastaugh could not have testified that the ink on the Diary paper had not been put there after 1989, because the tests were not exact enough to allow for such certitude."
And yet, this is what Dr. Easthaugh himself actually said:
"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."
The only way this sentence makes any sense at all or can be in any way relevant to this case is if Dr. Easthaugh is assuming that this diary has had the ink in it at least "a few years."
If the ink was not there for at least "a few years," Dr. Easthaugh would not have even had to write the words "after a few years." He would have had no reason to write these words unless he assumed that he was looking at ink "a few years" after it had been put on the paper.
So Melvin is simply wrong about what Dr. Easthaugh testified to.
Or is he?
Strangely, Melvin does not say that Dr. Easthaugh did not testify that the ink was on the paper for at least a few years. No. He says that Dr. Easthaugh "could not" have testified to this.
And yet he did.
Strange words from Melvin, why "could not" instead of "did not," I wonder.
Here again are Easthaugh's exact words. No too-literal interpretation of them or overly rigorous reading of them or wishful thinking, 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, we could not adequately differentiate inks of quite dissimilar age anyway."
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, Dr. Easthaugh has told us, all by himself, without us or Robert Smith 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? Where is the wishful thinking here? This is what the man said. These are his quoted words above, aren't they?
Now, Karoline has claimed 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, then.
That is the only way Karoline can be right, here.
It's not too-literal nor is it wishful thinking 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.
Karoline suggests that in 1992 it had been on the paper "almost no time at all."
They 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 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."
Karoline says, the ink was there "almost no time at all," in 1992.
If she is right, then Easthaugh would have been able to "adequately differentiate inks of quite dissimilar age" here (because, if she was 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 Karoline was right).
They cannot both be right, under any interpretation of his words whatsoever.
Either she is 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 she is wrong or Dr. Easthaugh is wrong.
So which is it, Karoline?
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:58 pm | | The questions about Eastaugh and the 1989 dating have been answered briefly in Harris's post that I just put up.
The other questions will have to wait until tomorrow.
By the way, John, your thanks are noted. The absence of thanks from others is also noted.
Paul wrote:
"Ah, so you can't point me in the direction of where melvin actually said what you claimed he said. Okay. No problem."
Paul, believe me,I've pointed you. But never mind I'll point you again. Are you ready?
I point you first in the direction of Melvin's articles here on the Casebook.
2. in the direction of Melvin himself, where he from his own mouth (direction, south of the eyes), told me some additional info which I will post here in due course.
3. I point you at Alec Voller, who you will find said that his was the only firm making MS ink with nigrosine as a sighting agent in the 1970s, and up to the 1990s.
Now, I'm done with pointing you, your directions from now on are your own affair.
K |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 02:16 pm | | Karoline,
You inexplicably wrote:
"The questions about Eastaugh and the 1989 dating have been answered briefly in Harris's post that I just put up."
But they haven't been answered at all. Not even a little.
Please read my response to Melvin above and my final questions to you.
Melvin has said that Dr. Easthaugh "could not" have testified that the ink had been on the paper "at least a few years."
I have demonstrated above that Dr. Easthaugh did testify that the ink had been on the paper at least a few years.
You can see this demonstration in the post right above the one you just sent.
The post you put up from Melvin did not answer these questions at all. They just said "Easthaugh could not have said that."
But he did. Melvin is wrong. He clearly did and I demonstrate this, using his own words, just one post up from yours.
He said precisely that. See:
"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."
He could only have written this if he assumed that the ink he was looking at was at least a few years old. That's why he wrote "after a few years." This was in 1992. That's simply what he said.
Again, Dr. Easthaugh said:
"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."
So Melvin's remark, that he could not have said this, is useless.
He did.
And it means that either you are wrong when you said the ink had been there "almost no time at all" in 1992, or Dr. Easthaugh is wrong when he says that the ink he saw in 1992 must have been there at least a few years. See, that's why he writes that we are looking at this ink on this paper "after a few years."
Oh no, Karoline. You still have not answered the questions in the post above yours at all, not even a little. And suggesting that Melvin's post has taken care of this for you is not only completely incorrect, but looks awfully evasive and as if you wished only to run and hide.
I do not think you should be allowed to run from this.
How about answering the questions in the post right above yours, Karoline? You said this morning that you would, "in full," later today.
Will you?
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 02:30 pm | | Thanks Karoline. All your hard work is duly noted.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 01:13 pm | | John--I don't agree with your interpretation of Eastaugh's words. You've been repeating them ad naseum for some time now. Sorry. You can't take a grammatical construction, reverse it, fiddle around with it and apply logic to it to "prove" that science has a method for determining how long ink has been on paper. If Mr.Eastaugh indeed has a precise method for determing how long ink has been on paper after 18 months or so has passed, I wish you would all clue us in on this extraordinary test and explain how it operates.
To Melvin Harris/Keith Skinner/Shirley Harrison: Was the test that Joe Nickell developed for the presence of nigrosine ever used on the diary's ink? Thanks.
I dare say that I find it difficult to believe that the ink could have been on the paper previous to 1987, when the police list was first published. [Yes, the police list, of course, existed; but would a forger sophisticated enough to discover & use unpublished documents be at the same time stupid enough to quote verbatum from them, making the research obvious & self-defeating? ] RJP |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 01:26 pm | | Would a forger sophisticated enough to artifically age an ink using a sunray lamp have been so stupid as to invent a 'got it from a dead mate' provenance?
I ask the same sort of questions, but am aware that in many cases there are various imponderables that deny any precise answer. For example, did the forger actually know he was quoting verbatim; might he not have thought he'd just noted down the gist of something in the list that was interesting. If the document was unpublished and unknown, did the forger expect it to be found? Is it any more or any less stupid to quote verbatim from a known published source than it is to quote verbatim from an unknown source?
And the bottom line, of course: the forger, whoever he was, was stupid enough to quote verbatim, no matter where he found it. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 01:55 pm | | RJP
I have kept out of John's argument as, indeed, have you, so let's see if we can't resolve it a little between us.
John has quoted Eastaugh as saying:
"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."
He interprets this as meaning that after being on the paper for a few of years it would be impossible to determine how long it had been on the paper for. I don't know what "a few years" means precisely, but let's say it means five years. Nick was therefore saying that after five years you couldn't tell whether the ink had been on the paper for five years or fifty years.
But doesn't this mean that within those five years one could tell that the ink had been put on the paper recently?
If it does mean that, then if Nick saw the 'diary' in 1992 and the ink didn't appear recent at that time, then it must have been applied to the paper five or more years earlier.
Now, I have absolutely no idea if this is true or not and frankly I incline to the view that it isn't, but it doesn't appear to me to be an unacceptable interpretation of what Nick said and the question seems a good one. Indeed, if it is what Nick was saying then the question is absolutely crucial isn't it? So, do you think that is what Nick was saying or do you or does anyone else know factually whether John's interpretation is fair or not.
(You see, people were trying to determin whether the ink was put on the paper 100 years ago. If it wasn't, then the 'diary' was a fake and nobody was interested. If the actual date couldn't be determined then hope that is was genuine remained. So nobody was bothered with actually "when" the ink was put on the paper, so the fact that it couldn't be determined whether the ink was put on the paper five years or one hundred years ago simply didn't matter. Nobody was trying to ascertain whether the ink was put on the paper in 1992 or 1980, so Nick's comment wouldn't have meant anything to anyone. That's why I urged consideration of 'old forgery', because it would have focused the questioning.) |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 02:20 pm | | Look RJ,
It's really very simple.
I'm not tinkering or fiddling or reversing anything at all.
Check it out.
Easthaugh wrote:
"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."
Now, Easthaugh said "after a few years." What do you think this refers to anyway? It is really quite clear that the only way this sentence makes any sense at all is if "after a few years" refers to when he thought, at the very least, this ink was put on this page, right?
What else could it refer to, RJ?
I'm open to suggestions.
If Easthaugh thought the ink could have been put on the page quite recently ("almost no time at all," Karoline says), then why, RJ, did he write "after a few years" referring to this diary that he was examining?
If you can explain it better, I'm willing to listen.
But it seems clear to me that the sentence implies that Easthaugh assumed the ink was at least a few years old in this book. Otherwise, why did he say "after a few years," RJ?
Any ideas?
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 02:35 pm | | Am I very dim, or wouldn't the standard 'solubility in water' test, that I think Baxendale was said to have used, demonstrate whether the ink had been put on the paper 'in the last few years'? And given a little sophistication like adding some chemical to the solvent solution, isn't this what Dr Eastaugh meant by saying that he could give an opinion on recent application of ink up to a few years prior to the test, but after that it would be too fixed to respond to the solvent? And in any case, no test could say for certain whether an earlier application was (say) 10, 15, 20 or 100 years once the ink was fully fixed? Are we looking at another confict between Eastaugh and Baxendale: one of them saying the ink dissolved and was recent; the other saying it had fixed so much by the time he received it that he couldn't say how much older than x years the application was, when x(an unspecified small number)?
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 02:37 pm | | Sorry - the symbols in that last sentence didn't come out! It should have said 'when x is less than 98 but greater than an unspecified small number'.
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 02:43 pm | | Martin,
Do you think that unspecified small number had to be at least 3 (years)?
Thus, "after a few years?"
This would suggest that Easthaugh thought the ink was at least 3 years old. That's why he couldn't say how much older than that it was, since it had now fixed to the point that he could not test its age successfully.
Is this the idea? I'm struggling to understand.
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 03:23 pm | | I would have thought three years a very reasonable postulation John, and (though I'm really only guessing) I'd have thought inks would prove soluble at possibly varying speeds for up to five years, unless they contained some quick-drying agent.
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 03:33 pm | | Hi Martin
What Nick appears to have been saying is that once the ink has been on the paper for a given time then there is no way of knowing how long beyond that date it had been there. If this is the case then it follows that there must be a time when you'd know it had recently been applied.
Since Nick could not say how long the ink had been on the page, it had evidently been there longer than the "few years" during which he would have known it to be recently applied.
If this is true then the ink had been applied to the 'diary' "a few years" before Nick ran his tests, which, if they were in 1992, would be a few years before 1992.
This would certainly make the maroon diary a red herring and would put the creation of the forgery back into within the lifetime of Tony Devereux, which would in turn raise assorted questions, such as why Mike did nothing with the 'diary' for the six months following Tony's death. It might also throw doubt on whether the Crashaw quote came from a book Mike didn't obtain until after the stadium disaster in mid-1989. |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 03:54 pm | | Re: Eastaugh
John, Im afraid you are simply wrong in all you have said on the matter.
After Robert Smith's post appeared here, claiming that the ink couldn't have been on the page for less than three years in 1992, Harris phoned Nick Eastaugh, and read him Smith's observations.
As Harris's post above outlines, Eastaugh responded by saying that the test he did just didn't have the accuracy to be able to make the definite statements Smith claimed - there were simply too many possible variables (of which Harris listed a number), to be able to say the ink couldn't have been put on the paper after 1989.
This is Eastaugh's own verdict about his own test. We have to accept it.
To make it absolutely clear:
Eastaugh never claimed and does not now claim that he can rule out any date after 1989.
Unless anyone has any data that proves Eastaugh wrong here, I think this question is settled.
And it's worth emphasising again that the long supposed "contradictions" between Voller, Baxendale and Eastaugh are largely imaginary ( a product of faulty understanding of their results, and indeed of Baxendale's own careless wording).
As my review of the data above shows, there was actually no real disagreement between Baxendale, Voller and Eastaugh over the iron and nigrosine content of the ink.
I'll go on to consider the other apects of the forensic tests another time.
John, your question about Eastaugh is now answered - please note that.
Any additional questions still unanswered I will attempt to address when I have the time over the next few days - unless another outburst of aggression and abuse persuades me to quit this place for good.
K |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 04:41 pm | | K.
What I did was read Dr. Easthaugh's own words. Karoline, could you have Melvin ask him or could you tell me then what he meant by "after a few years," when he said,
"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."
Because if what Melvin tells you is true, then this sentence makes no sense.
I am not interested per se in what Easthaugh thought of Robert Smith's observations. I am interested in what Easthaugh himself meant when he said this. Was he simply assuming that the ink in this book was at least a few years old? Why?
Otherwise, we have him saying one thing here and Melvin telling us he is now saying something else elsewhere.
So if you or Melvin could ask him what this sentence means and why he said "after a few years," perhaps we can understand the source of this apparent conflict.
Also Karoline, does Melvin say anywhere in his own work that the ink on this diary had been on the page "almost no time at all" in 1992?
Where might he have concluded this? I've seen him conclude this is not an old forgery and there is no way to tell precisely when the ink was applied, but I can't find him saying the ink had been there "almost no time at all" in 1992 or that tests show this.
Can you help here? Where might Melvin have concluded or shown this? It was, after all, your own suggestion, earlier.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 05:07 pm | | Bye all,
That's it for me on this board too, for a time. Karoline, thanks for the info. If you do get word about what Dr. Easthaugh might have meant when he said "after a few years," let me know in a few days when I return. Until then I am afraid I won't be able to respond properly.
Thanks all,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 05:43 am | | Hi All,
Just before I really do dash off myself, let's get this straight. Melvin has telephoned Dr. Eastaugh and read over to him Robert Smith's observations. I am confident that Melvin would have made it crystal clear to the good doctor that, among these 'observations', Eastaugh's own words were being quoted back to him, thereby giving him the opportunity to explain precisely why he would now be contradicting himself, and not simply suggesting that Robert Smith's 'observations' may have led to a misinterpretation.
I really think we should know the full circumstances of how Dr. Eastaugh came to contradict his own original words so effectively.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Smith
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 11:47 am | | Glancing briefly back to my post of 8th May, I am pleased that some of the contributors to the these boards found the sections on the transcript and on timings relating to the first appearances of the red diary and the scrapbook were of value.
The critics were harsher when I ventured into textual analysis of the parallels between Crashaw’s poem and the diary. I readily admit that imagery containing references to blood, wounds, eyes, mothers and death are to be found elsewhere in the diary and elsewhere in Crashaw. The interesting point is that they appear in both the lines immediately around the quote in Crashaw’s poem, “O costly intercourse/of deaths”, and in the lines surrounding the almost identical quote in the diary, which so appositely follow the murder of Mary Kelly.
Thank you, Melvin, for telling us, after several years of discussion about the physical characteristics of the Sphere edition owned by Mike, that it is a hardback. As Sphere was a paperback company, it was not unreasonable to assume Mike’s edition was a paperback. Occasionally Sphere would produce a hardback edition, largely for the library market. Why hold back such basic and essential information? For completeness, can we also be told in which year Mike’s hardback edition was published (1970 or 1986)? Looking at Melvin’s explanation, it is difficult to understand, why, unless one was already on page 183, the book would fall open at pages 184/185, because of “a small spread” of glue on page 183, pulling on page 184. Also hardbacks tend to open, after some use, at the middle of sections not the beginnings. However, assuming that Melvin’s observations when he first saw the book are correct, how can he know how the pages fell open on the day when Mike first turned up the quote? Subsequent usage may have been responsible for the apparent bias.
Moving on to the watch, I am not aware that anyone has conducted scientific tests which contradict the conclusion of the two eminent scientists at Bristol University and UMIST, who examined the artefact with the most advanced technology available, and actually agreed on the dating of several decades prior to 1993. Would that the ink analysts were so consistent.
Speaking of which, what can we make of the ink experts? Baxendale, Eastaugh, Leeds University and Kuranz (of the Rendell team) were all commissioned to undertake a thorough scientific analysis of the diary ink. Analysis For Industry were briefed to look only for the presence of chloroacetamide. Voller only examined the diary visually, as did Audrey Giles for the Sunday Times, who shamefully cancelled two appointments made with me to bring the diary to her laboratory for forensic testing; and based her report in the Sunday Times on an earlier cursory look at the diary in my office. What follows are some observations based on the actual words of the written reports they produced – not using paraphrasing, not seeking by telephone interview verbal modifications from the reports’ authors, not assuming the authors must have mistakenly left a key word out, and really meant the opposite of what they did say. As will be evident, I make no claim to have any knowledge of chemistry whatsoever, apart from a few trifles half remembered from ‘O’ level chemistry.
The most extensive work on the diary was undertaken by Dr Eastaugh, who reported on 2nd October 1992. We can have confidence in his work, as Kenneth Rendell, who denounced the diary as a fake, nevertheless praised Eastaugh, saying: “The test he did was very competently carried out.” On the Rendell team was Bob Kuranz who, Rendell reported, “used thin-layer chromatographic techniques to analyse the ink for any element that could be inconsistent with the date [of 1889] and found none (he basically duplicated the work of Dr Eastaugh,)”.
Eastaugh analysed four samples of ink taken from the diary and compared them to a variety of Victorian reference. He found the major elements to be Silicon, Sulphur and (in three of the samples) Aluminium. The minor elements were Iron and Sodium. That is why he was able to note “the presence of iron in clearly measurable amounts”.
Leeds University’s findings on 1st December 1994 were very similar, except they didn’t detect the minor element, Sodium. Leeds concluded that: “The very presence of iron and increased sulphur associated with the diary ink suggests strongly an iron-gallotannate ink system.”
The report of Dr Baxendale, the first man to analyse the ink, also using “thin-layer chromatology”, turned out to be the most baffling. Unlike Dr Eastaugh and Leeds he produced no back-up data and graphs to support his findings, so we have only his words to rely on.
He wrote on 7 July 1992: “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. There was no sign of such a brown colour.” He doesn’t say what chemicals are in the ink.
In a second report on 9 July 1992, he emphasises again: “There was nothing to suggest the presence of iron.” Baxendale is the sole analyst not to find iron in the ink. The level of iron, we know from Eastaugh and Leeds, is “minor”. That may be the reason why, although the diary is an iron-gall ink, Baxendale found no browning, and why Voller, commented at a meeting on 30th October 1995: “This is as I thought: It’s barely visible. In one or two places there is some very slight bronzing.”
It is Baxendale’s second report that introduces his view that “the chromatogram is characteristic of inks based on a synthetic dye called nigrosine”, which he says, “has been used in many inks, at least since the 1940s”. And he does mean what he says, because on the next page, he adds: “Synthetic dyestuffs did not become common in inks until the second world war. They may have been used earlier, but not before the first world war.” Another of the Rendell team, Dr Joe Nickell stated in Pen, Ink and Evidence, published in 1990, that nigrosine ink was “first produced commercially 1867”, and Shirley found the patent number for that same year. If Baxendale was so wrong about when nigrosine was first used in inks commercially, was he right in the view that nigrosine was even used in the diary? Eastaugh’s tests “suggest that the ink is not based on a synthetic dyestuff”. I believe Voller was the only other chemist to offer an opinion on nigrosine: “You only get very pronounced bronzing where the ink is a blue-black. That is to say when the dye is not nigrosine but is in fact ink blue. With a nigrosine base, the bronzing is usually less obvious. The dyestuff here is clearly nigrosine. I have seen a considerable number of documents like that where there has been very little bronzing”.
Voller’s view on the presence of nigrosine in the ink was based only on a visual examination. It is possible that Baxendale and Voller assumed that nigrosine was present, because of the no – or very slow – bronzing effect, whereas could it be the low level of iron, measured by Eastaugh and Leeds University, which is responsible? Another factor may be that the diary paper has almost certainly had little exposure to the air over the last century or so, which could limit the amount of oxidation of the iron. The diary paper was, and still is in excellent condition and shows few signs of the wear and tear usually seen in used scrapbooks of the late Victorian period.
In summary, on looking into the findings of Baxendale, Eastaugh and Voller, we cannot conclude that the diary ink contains nigrosine.
On the matter of the diary ink’s solubility, I and others have already quoted Dr Eastaugh at length and accurately. He refutes Dr Baxendale unequivocally: “To say that the ink of the diary is ‘freely soluble’ is subjective and effectively unsupported.” Rather than put Dr Eastaugh on the spot in a phone call, when the information may have been presented selectively, it would have been fairer to him (and me) if Melvin had sent him my complete post of 8th May. If he is seeking some form of modification of the reports, would he please send both that post and this post to Dr Eastaugh? My understanding of Dr Eastaugh’s comments on solubility is that when the ink has been on the paper for longer than three to five years, a solubility test will not reveal how much earlier the ink was applied to the paper. I, of course, appreciate it is an approximate timing, but it should rule out, at the very least, either 1991 or 1992 as the date when the ink was applied.
Some people, including Mike Barrett, have said that the diary ink is Diamine ink. Alec Voller, the former chief chemist of Diamine was categorical about the diary ink at the meeting on 30th October 1995: “That’s not Diamine manuscript ink” and qualified his statement by adding, “that’s to say within the last 20 to 30 years.” If the diary had been written with Diamine ink, it would contain nigrosine. So far we only have Baxendale and Voller confidently claiming it does contain nigrosine, and for the reasons given above, we need to be concerned about the accuracy of Baxendale’s findings, re both iron and nigrosine.
Diamine, according to Voller, contains iron. Leeds finds “no evidence of the presence of iron in Diamine ink”. If we believe Voller, on the basis that Diamine is his ink, then both the diary ink and Diamine contain iron. However, Leeds University found zinc, cobalt, chromium and either barium or titanium in Diamine ink, but not in the diary ink. It is therefore not true to say that Diamine and the diary ink must be chemically the same.
Moving on to the issue of Chloroacetamide, Voller provided an analysis of Diamine ink on 1st February 1995, which shows that the amount of Chloroacetamide in Diamine ink is 0.26 parts per hundred. According to their reports of 20th December 1994 and 7th May 1996, Analysis for Industry detected an apparently very low level of 6.5 parts per million in the diary ink. 0.26 parts per hundred is the equivalent of 2600 parts per million. On that evidence alone, how can Diamine ink be the same as the diary ink? We should also record at this point that Leeds University found a trace of Chloroacetamide on a first test (explained later to be the result of contamination), and none at all on a second test. John Roberts, Professor of Paper Science at UMIST, weighed in on 23rd October 1995 to criticise profoundly Analysis for Industry’s method: “The correct procedure would be to use gas chromatography in conjunction with mass spectrometry. This is a well established technique for such work and should have been used. The identification is more or less worthless without it.”
Beyond that, Professor Roberts challenges fundamentally the whole relevance of Chloroacetamide to the issue of dating the diary, by pointing out that “the earliest reliable reference to Chloroacetamide is to be found in 1857”, and goes on to say that, “the fact that it existed well before that date [1889] would devalue the scientific evidence in support of the fact that the diaries were forged.”
One could also note Alec Voller’s point: “It was not unusual in those days for paper to be chlorine bleached and chlorine is an extremely reactive substance. There may well have been something in the paper to start with that could react with chlorine and produce Chloroacetamide. There are all sorts of ways in which one can produce Chloroacetamide.” Well, that is interesting. In two out of four diary ink samples, Dr Eastaugh found a trace of chlorine, and in four out of four samples of black powder found on some of the pages in the area of the diary’s spine, chlorine was a “minor” element.
Finally, Voller’s visual observation of the irregular fading effect in the diary ink, indicating considerable age, may well be valid. Taking all the factors into account, the evidence indicates that the diary ink is not Diamine ink.
I have written this post to help anyone wanting to debate the ink further, locate what the experts have actually said and the specific results of the tests they conducted. The quotations are no substitute for the full reports.
There is still no definitive proof of when the ink was put on the paper. The visual examiners like Alec Voller and Robert AH Smith at the British Museum, and the scientific analysts like Dr Eastaugh and Bob Kuranz, all confirm there is no inconsistency with the date of 1888/9. Many people on the boards argue for a post 1987 or a post 1989 date – some go for 1992. I may not agree with them, but I respect everyone’s right to assess the evidence, to voice their opinions, and, if they wish, to use their powers of persuasion to modify others’ opinions.
Note for RJP
On 23rd March 1993, to preserve and protect the physical diary, Mike and Anne Barrett agreed to sell the diary to my company, Smith Gryphon, for a nominal £1, since when it has remained in my ownership locked up in a security vault, except for occasional outings to show it to experts or for TV programmes.
Robert |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 12:52 pm | | Robert, hello. Thanks for the information. Melvin stated sometime back that Mike's copy of the Sphere was the 1986 edition.
Joe Nickell & John Fischer have developed a test for nigrosine if you're interested. [page 207 of Nickell's Pen, Ink, Evidence describes the test] Of course, the Victorians used nigrosine as well, but it might help settle the dispute over whether Diamine could have been used. RJP |
Author: Mike David
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 02:51 am | | Karoline was asked to post this for Melvin Harris, but she has passed it on for me to do in her stead.
From Melvin Harris
Re: the Sphere book:
Robert, you are mistaken if you think I held back information on the Sphere book. If I am talking about a paperback I say so, my earlier posts will show you that. But most of the books I mention are hardback editions, yet are not described as such by me.
In the Sphere case I gave the publication date, which was that of the second hardback edition. Fact is that nobody, to my knowledge, ever thought the book to be a humble paperback. Mind you, I have not seen all the postings on screen, so I could be wrong here. So let us say that no-one has ever pout the question to me.
And note: the book does not always fall open at page 184. Other defects make it fall open more often at other pages, in fact it does so most often at p. 196.
But 184 is one of the biased pages and it was four lines on that page that caught Mike's eye because he saw the word 'intercourse', which to him meant only one thing!
But what cannot be shaken in his story are the events concerning Allan Gray.
Now Gray was not involved in Ripperology, neither did he know anyone thus involved. Yet Gray can vouch for the fact that Mike had mentioned an evidential book to him at the beginning of August 1994 and by the first week of September had named it as a Sphere book of poems. This is way before the amazing revelation date of 30 Sept 1994.
You say that:
"Leeds finds no evidence of the presence of iron in Diamine ink ... They also found zinc, cobalt, chromium and either barium or titanium in Diamine ink, but not in the Diary ink. It is therefore not true to say that Diamine and the Diary ink are chemically the same."
But at the end of 1994 it was revealed that the Diamine Manuscript Ink analysed by Leeds was not the ink on sale in 1992 and earlier. The Bluecoats Art Shop in Liverpool had mistakenly sent Nick Warren a later product that was made to a completely different formula. It was not the original iron-gall ink.
But you were told all this when the error was found.
Not only that, but Voller then made up a special batch of the iron-gall-plus-nigrosine Manuscript Ink and sent one lot to Smith/Harrison and one lot to Nick Warren. He also sent instructions for using the ink to make tests. To Smith/Harrison he advised making such tests on an unused page of the Diary itself.
Now, Nick Warren made such tests. As a result we now know that Diamine MS Ink will bronze in three years, just as the Diary ink bronzed in three years.
So where are the tests you were asked to make? And why are you issuing this false report? And while you ponder on an answer let me advise you to read the two reports I have placed on the watch tests. And do rethink your remarks on the AFI tests. Perhaps you may of your own volition discover why they are fatally flawed!
To others:
The confusion over the ink tests was not helped by statements from the ill-informed. In the Aug/Sept '94 Real Crime Book Digest Martin Fido said:
"Melvin Harris and Nick Warren have had the art shop's ink analysed finding nigroscene (sic) - the unusual dye already identified in the Diary's ink. But also iron - declared by one analyst not present in the diary."
Neither of these claims was correct. The AFI analyses were for chloroacetamide and nothing else.
Shirley Harrison then made the claim that:
{"Diamine ... contains a modern synthetic dye that any of our analysts would have spotted in the ink of the diary."
Readers of her book would conclude from this that there was no chance of the suspected ink having been used. Today Fido is telling us that those words of Mrs Harrison's were repeating a phrase used by Voller.
Now I was the first to speak to Voller after the art shop ink had been identified. He played no tricks with me; he gave me the formula for his iron-gall-plus-nigrosine ink and he advised that any further tests should look for the preservative chloroacetamide. He stated without any caveats that it was this substance alone that distinguished his ink from a Victorian iron-gall ink.
He made no mention of the nigrosine as a modern product; had he done so I would have corrected him at once. And when Harrison spoke to him she knew as well as I did that nigrosine dyestuff was used in Victorian times. So why did she phrase her claim in such an odd way?
Is she really asking us to believe that Voller withheld the name of the 'synthetic dye' and that she did not ask for it? Who knows? What we can say is that she made a false claim. That does not mean that she was lying. A false claim can result from confusion, from impetuosity, and other reasons. Even so it can create the same sort of damage as a deliberate lie when it is put into print.
RE: chloroacetamide:
Though it was known in the Victorian era, no commercial manufacturing process was developed until the end of World War Two. Until then the compound was made slowly in small lab flasks and could not be made economically enough to be used in something as cheap as a bottle of ink.
Indeed it was not until 11 March 1965 that the Aldrich Chemical Company was able to offer the compound for sale. And Aldrich prides itself on offering "The most comprehensive line of chemicals and related products available anywhere in the world."
RE: Baxendale's tests:
To start, you do not have to know the history of a chemical compound in order to identify it. The chromatogram is simply compared to reference samples.
And Baxendale explained to me that the colouring matter in the ink was drawn out into the solvent within seconds. To him that indicated an ink of little age. It was this quickly liberated colour that was identified by the chromatography and gave the nigrosine pattern.
But before that he had used a Zeiss binomicroscope to examine the text. This optical scanning of each line of Diary writing had failed to show the slightest trace of bronzing, hence his verdict that there was no obvious sign of iron. Of oxidised iron, to be precise.
By rights, he said, such bronzing should have been evident in a journal that was alleged to have been penned for a whole year ending on 3 May 1889. His report's conclusion makes this point beyond any possible misunderstanding. It reads:
"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 as such tend to change to a brown colour with age. There is no sign of such a brown colour."
This lack of bronzing was later noticed by every examiner until Voller found traces in October 1995. (See above for Nick Warren's Diamine test results). |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 06:34 am | | Can someone please pass the following to Melvin? Thanks.
Yet Gray can vouch for the fact that Mike had mentioned an evidential book to him at the beginning of August 1994 and by the first week of September had named it as a Sphere book of poems. This is way before the amazing revelation date of 30 Sept 1994.
So why did you state categorically that Mike's Sphere vol.2 was lodged with his solicitor 'LONG BEFORE' June 1994, if all you really knew was the above, which doesn't really amount to very much, in the absence of word from the solicitor, regarding the precise date of lodgement? And as you say, when talking about Shirley, A false claim can result from confusion, from impetuosity, and other reasons. Even so it can create the same sort of damage as a deliberate lie when it is put into print.
RE: chloroacetamide:
I take it there is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming as to why the proportion of this preservative, found in the diary ink by AFI, was minuscule compared with the proportion in Diamine? 6.5 parts per million in the diary ink, as compared with 2600 parts per million in Diamine? Strikes me as an odd way for a preservative to behave - 2593.5 parts per million simply vanishing from the dried ink, after being on the paper "almost no time at all", in 1992, according to Karoline Leach.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 07:00 am | | I have just remembered that the 6.5 parts per million, as given in Robert Smith's recent post, was the figure quoted in Shirley's book, and that there was some dispute over whether the amount of chloroacetamide found by AFI was ever actually measured, let alone correctly quoted by Shirley.
It's a great pity if AFI were not asked to compare proportions of this crucial ingredient, but only asked if they could find it at all. Like so many other aspects of this saga, it leaves things open to further speculation - more loose ends not adequately tied off.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 09:26 am | | Hello all,
It seems to me then, that in Melvin's post above he has finally said nothing at all about whether he has any evidence concerning the date Mike first saw the Crashaw quote in the Sphere volume, right? Nothing at all suggesting Mike saw it before 1992, right? Only that Mike first mentioned it to anyone well over two years later in August of '94, after he had already tried to confess and did not mention it. Interesting. And it is becoming clear that Melvin does not know when Mike actually lodged the book with his solicitors, that he (like the rest of us) has not been able to find out that precise date either. This makes me wonder what else he does not actually know and therefore what else remains a mystery.
For instance, does Melvin have any material evidence that links Kane in any way whatsoever to Mike Barrett or suggests that Barrett and Kane even knew each other? And of course, does Melvin really have proof of who forged this diary? Does he even have reliable and/or definitive evidence of who forged this diary? These and other important questions remain. It turns out the answer to another question I once asked (Does Melvin happen to know precisely when Mike lodged his Sphere book with the solicitor) was 'no.'
But there was a second part, that I remain unclear on: does he believe that Mike and/or Anne knew before Mike took the diary to Doreen's that it was a forgery?
This would seem to be one of the most important questions at the moment, especially if Melvin has any real, reliable evidence either way. I wonder if he does have any real, reliable evidence either way?
Also, once again Melvin has written a post on what the science allows us to claim and he has not written that ink in the diary had been there "almost no time at all" in 1992. This was Karoline's assertion. Melvin again seems to suggest that even by his own analysis we have the possibility of '91, '90, even '89, '88, and I don't know how far back. Could we get back to 1969, say, and Stephen Powell's story? Melvin doesn't say (perhaps he's hedging his bets).
So the science does not allow us to pinpoint the time in such a way that we can use it to discuss the specific events of the years immediately prior to the books arrival in '92 and therefore it does not seem to help us in determining the likely authors if that is when the book was composed. And what does the science say about the possibility of the book being written some twenty years prior to its appearance? I still don't know.
Melvin has written a post which announces much but tells us very little.
And one last thing. There is a strange slip of subject in Melvin's post above.
He writes to Robert Smith about Nick testing a new batch of ink. But his claim shifts from one moment to the next.
First he quotes Robert's original claim:
"Leeds finds no evidence of the presence of iron in Diamine ink ... They also found zinc, cobalt, chromium and either barium or titanium in Diamine ink, but not in the Diary ink. It is therefore not true to say that Diamine and the Diary ink are chemically the same."
This is a quote about what chemicals were found in the ink Leeds tested.
Then Melvin tells us that Leeds tested the wrong ink. Fair enough. Then he tells us that a special batch of the relevant Diamine ink was made up by Voller and this was tested by Nick. And he tells us what Nick found. Now, at this point one expects that he is therefore going to tell us what chemicals were and were not in the new batch (thereby correcting Robert's original assertion).
But he does not. All he tells us is that Nick's test showed us that "Diamine MS Ink will bronze in three years, just as the Diary ink bronzed in three years."
But, wait, what happened to the original point? What did Nick's test tell us about the chemical make-up of the new batch and how it might be different from the chemical make-up described above by Leeds and, more importantly from the chemical make-up of the diary ink? Why didn't Melvin tell us this? This was the original question, after all.
This should probably be made clear.
Otherwise, we know nothing more at all concerning how long the ink has been on the page or if it definitely is or is not Diamine from what Melvin tells us than we did before he posted.
But I'm willing to keep reading.
--John |
|
|
|
|
