|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 06 September 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Forensic Evidence:
Archive through 06 September 2001
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 09:17 pm |        | | Another point to remember RJ is that when Barrett produced the diary and it was questioned we were informed ( by the diary camp) that he was reliable, honest,upstanding,trustworthy, and much more. Yet at the 13th hour when he changed his tune and denounced it as a forgery we were informed,you cant take any notice of what he says because he is a drunk, and unreliable etc. Also I have never heard of a case where someone has a genuine article worth it's weight in gold only to turn around and state that it is a forgery!! As for that dodgy watch I can remember that I could not stop laughing when I learnt of it. And when it was taken seriously by the gullible and ignorant I laughed even louder and longer. Some people will believe anything. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 10:23 pm | | MR SMITH,
The big breakthrough as you term it can be achieved if the FSD get to examine the diary and give it a full examination. I will contact them on Monday but in the meantime would you be prepared to let them examine the diary in all possible areas. By that I mean not just an ink test but an examination by every available means. I would like to stress that it is in the public interest that a full examination takes place on the diary and that no stone goes unturned in doing so. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 03:55 am | | Dear Ivor,
Was it not the Home Office's 'Forensic Service' who swore that a policewoman's fingerprint was identified at the murder scene when she had not been there?
Such simple faith in human agency and science warms my heart.
Rosey Rocker :-) |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 07:09 am | | Easy there, RJ,
This isn't all that surreal.
You write:
"This is getting SURREAL and eerily similar to a Whitehouse press release. Tim Dundas doesn't merely 'contradict' the findings of Turgoose & Wilde.. HE IS STATING THAT THE SCRATCHES DIDN'T EVEN EXIST SIX YEARS EARLIER! If one believes Dundas, how on earth does this "certainly not tell us when the watch[ie., scratches] were made"?? Dundas took the watch apart to clean & repair it, how could he have missed the engravings??"
Let's see:
Mr. Dundas says the scratches were not there six years earlier.
Drs. Turgoose and Wilde say the scratches are likely to be at least tens of years old.
These two testimonies directly disagree. One could even say they are "in contradiction" with one another.
Therefore, we are left with contradictory testimony and evidence.
That doesn't seem too hard to understand.
If you believe one of these testimonies, then the other must be wrong. If you believe either one, then that one tells you "when the watch was made."
If you believe Dundas, then the scientists must be wrong or mistaken. Then Dundas does indeed tell you when the watch was made.
If you believe the scientists, then Dundas is likely to be wrong or mistaken. Then the scientists tell you when the watch was made.
If you do not have sufficient material or reliable evidence to believe one over the other, if Dundas's story remains uncorroborated and the word of a single witness and if the scientists' results are challenged and they cannot or do not adequately respond, then you have contradictory testimony which must remain contradictory until you know more or have more concrete evidence -- something, that is, more reliable than one single person's eyewitness testimony or one single set of scientific conclusions (both of which directly contradict each other). Oh wait, we do have "two" sets of scientific conclusions and one person's eyewitness testimony, sorry. In any case, it seems to me what we also have here is "a contradiction."
There is nothing surreal about saying so. At least nothing that I can see. But I understand that you choose to believe Dundas and therefore not the scientists. I can imagine others might take the expert word of the scientists over Dundas' recollections. I, personally, will wait until I know more. All three of these approaches seem reasonable to me.
But the contradiction in the evidence remains.
And the scientists should have conducted their experiment objectively and without knowing in advance what anyone had said about the watch, including Mr. Dundas. Otherwise the results would be open to charges of being tainted by prior expectations. I hope that was the case. They were supposed to be conducting objective tests on previously unseen material, weren't they?
And I have certainly never offered the watch as sufficient reason to rethink the diary's age. I have merely, all along, been asking a simple question. What possible explanation can there be for this watch, given what the two scientists concluded? And the only explanation that you seem to acknowledge or that satisfies you,, personally, is that both the scientists were simply wrong when they stated that the marks are likely to date back at least tens of years. Fine. No problem. I think that is the most likely explanation as well. I was just wondering if there were any other possible explanations, any possible ways the watch might have preceded the diary (assuming it was written post-1989).
Now, what the evidence actually demonstrates in a clear and reliable manner about the who and why of the diary and the history of the watch -- that's another matter. And what it demonstrates in a clear and reliable manner about these things, so far, is very little, since so much of it is partial, hearsay, and unreliable and even, dare I say it, contradictory.
But I must rush off, after a word or two to Ivor, to take my shot in a tournament this weekend.
Wish me luck,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 09:30 am | | Hi Ivor, John, All,
Wouldn't it be amusing if Robert went ahead and allowed the FSD to test the diary - and they sent for either Dr. Baxendale or Dr. Eastaugh to do the work? 
No - of course, it would be anything but amusing, for all those giving up their time and money, including you, Ivor, if you have written again to the FSD. So I hope you can also ascertain from them precisely who they would call upon to carry out such a test, remembering of course not to mention previous tests or testers, nor anything about the document to be examined being a possible or suspected forgery (or, worst of all, already proven by Melvin to be a modern hoax!  )
Ivor, you haven't mentioned any such thing, have you, in your correspondence with the FSD up until now? I'm sure you wouldn't have, but I'm only checking, because that might leave any verdict open to suggestions that it was based on a misleading brief.
It appears you didn't send Robert the letter you quoted on the boards, which is a pity, because it would have made much more sense to write to him directly at the time, if you wanted the diary tested by the FSD, rather than talking about it with others on the internet, when he wasn't reading the casebook message boards. Anyway, at least you now have your answer, concerning what Robert is prepared to do. So we'll have to see what kind of response you get from the FSD first.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 04:56 pm | | | Hi Caz, I take note of your comments. The diary has had such a high profile the FSD probably know more about it than I do.I just told the chap today that the item required for testing is a photograph album which was used as a diary.I will take your advice and find out who will examine the diary if the tests are to take place.All I am doing Caz is trying to help sort this matter of the diary out. It does need sorting out that is for sure. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 04:52 am | | Hi Ivor,
I appreciate any efforts you make to sort it out - really I do.
But I hope you also appreciate why it can't just be a matter of expecting Robert to post the diary off to the FSD and let them get on with it (as Peter Birchwood suggested), and expecting other people to pay.
Yes, the FSD probably do know about the diary - that can't be helped. But obviously we have to minimise any chances of this going pear-shaped, for all the reasons I've given.
I believe that Dr. Baxendale, for instance, was ex-Home Office when he tested the diary, and still undertakes work for them. So Peter has to consider that when he talks about the Home Office as though they are the most obvious and reputable choice, and tells us they were 'deliberately' not asked to do the job years ago.
Again, depending on the verdict, the Home Office would either have been the right people to ask in the first place, or just another bunch of cowboys, who chose the wrong man for the job.
Would this be another no-win situation?
Trying not to be too pessimistic, Ivor, but as you yourself have said, the scientific tests up to now have been a waste of time and a fiasco. You and I and Robert and everyone else must surely have an interest in making sure that doesn't happen again.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 01:27 pm | | | Hi Caz, In total agreement with you. In fact I intend to ask them that they get the most reliable people they have to examine the diary. And not NOT anyone connected to it in anyway in the past if the tests go ahead. We can do without another hit and miss affair. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 04:47 pm | | Hi Ivor,
Well, I wish you luck, in asking the Home Office to be sure to get the most reliable people on the job. 
But don't forget Robert's clear stipulations in all your enthusiasm, will you? After all, he does own the diary.
Love,
Caz
PS A message from Keith Skinner follows. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 04:48 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Ivor Edwards
Mr Edwards,
In your post to Robert Smith of Friday, July 27, 2001 – 03:30 pm, you refer to a meeting with Robert at his London office during 1993 when several issues, including the Diary, were discussed.
Certainly such an early meeting gives weight to your desire to be actively rid of this troublesome artefact.
However, could you possibly tell me when in 1993 this meeting occurred, as your involvement and contribution, as a perceptive outsider, I’m sure would have been very valuable, if the “Diary Camp” had been made aware of your input. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:01 pm | | Thank you Caz.
Dear Mr Skinner,
My meeting with Mr Smith took place just prior to November 1993.I have a letter written by Mr Smith on 9th November 1993 and my meeting with him was several weeks prior to this date. I was also in contact with David Canter who wrote to me on 20th July 1993 after I had explained to him the research I had undertaken in relation to the Whitechapel murders.This information was also given to Mr Smith when I met with him. After explaining my findings to David Canter he replied in his letter part of which I quote, Your further evidence is most intriguing especially given the emergence of the supposed "Ripper Journal". I have seen this document. The material you have may be very relevant to proving or disproving the authenticity of the Journal. Could you please indicate the source of your evidence about the plans ? Is this some further actual historical documents you have found, or inferences you have made from careful examination of the crimes. I would certainly be happy to meet you in order to talk about this matter further. My information to which David Canter refers was obtained from careful examination.Very Best Wishes. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 07:34 am | | From Keith Skinner To Ivor Edwards
Dear Mr Edwards
Thank you very much for your full and courteous reply to my question.
Given my understanding, from what you have written, relating to the circumstances of your approach to David Canter and Robert Smith, I think I can now fully appreciate why you have such an antipathy towards the Diary and the Watch – and to those of us who are still attempting to resolve both artefacts.
I hope though that you would not allow your understandable resentment, at the emergence of the Diary and the Watch, to cloud or impair your objectivity in assessing or evaluating their historical status.
Best Wishes
Keith Skinner |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 03:30 pm | | | Dear Mr Skinner, I take note of your comments and give you my assurance that I will do my utmost in taking your advice which I do indeed value.Very best wishes. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 03:14 am | | Hi Ivor,
I'll send your reply to Keith before I leave for Spain tomorrow.
Be good while I'm away, and don't give the Home Office too hard a time - it'll only make them work even slower and spend even longer in the pub at lunch-time. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 03:05 pm | | | Hi Caz, Have a good trip.Watch out for those matadors!!In the meantime I will try and behave myself :-) |
Author: Robert Smith
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 12:10 pm | | Dear Mr Edwards,
May I refer you to my post of 27th July 2001 on the Forensic Evidence Board. In it, I wrote:
“If you can get a clear assurance from them [The Forensic Science Service], that they can describe tests, which will reliably date an ink on a time scale between 1888 and 1992, then subject to the money being found for the tests, I would be happy for them to conduct such tests.”
The only way to satisfy this requirement is for the Forensic Science Service to provide a list and description of the tests they intend to conduct on the diary. If the information they supply leads me to feeling confident that they could reliably date it, I would release the diary to them for an estimate of the cost.
With the exception of the controversial ion migration test by Rod McNeil, who claimed the diary was written within twelve years of 1921, all previous tests have failed to tell us when, even approximately, the diary was written. That is why we need to know what tests the Forensic Science Service would undertake to establish the date. If they simply repeat previous tests or conduct non-conclusive tests, nothing will have been achieved.
You have great faith in the ability of the Home Office and their Forensic Science Service to solve the question of the diary’s authenticity. However, I remember only too well that Dr Baxendale, who is ex-Home Office and whose laboratory was/is employed by the Home Office for forensic testing, was the man who confidently stated in his 1992 report on the diary:
“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.”
As has been mentioned previously on this board, the synthetic dyestuff, Nigrosine, was patented and produced commercially in 1867. Forgive me, if I’m not impressed by Dr Baxendale and the Home Office, but I will try to be objective.
You have also overlooked my proviso, “subject to the money being found”. I do not have the resources to fund tests by the Home Office or to employ solicitors to write to them. If you can convince a few people (for instance, some of those who read these boards or attend the Bournemouth Conference), that the Forensic Science Service can prove the diary to be a modern fake, I imagine you will have no difficulty raising the contributions necessary to fund the tests and the solicitors.
Robert Smith |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 02:01 pm | | | Dear Mr Smith,It is a pity you were not aware of your monetary situation 5 weeks ago. I am sorry to learn that your finances are such that you cannot even afford to send a solictor's letter to the FSS.Maybe we should forget about having a whip round for the diary at Bournemouth and have one for you instead.Does your situation mean that you wont be attending the Bournmouth conference due to cash flow problems ? If so then perhaps we could have a whip round on the casebook to pay for your train fare. I understand you are the literary agent for the disgraced former MP Neil Hamilton surely he is good for a few quid if you ask him nicely.On second thoughts he will need what money he has to get him out of the recent sex scandel allegations he is facing.How about Jeffrey Archer he is good for a few quid try tapping him up. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 06:10 am | | Ivor, you are being quite outrageous, you naughty old sausage!
How dare you suggest that Robert should find the resources necessary, simply to satisfy your own demand to have the FSS conduct possibly useless further tests? You are the one who thinks these are so vital, which is curious considering you believe Melvin Harris has already proved the diary to be a modern fake. If you, and others, feel the tests need to be done, in order to back up Melvin's position, I suggest you start having your own whip round - I'll chuck in a few bob if you can organise getting the description of a reliable-sounding test out of the FSS, as Robert reasonably asked for in the first place.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 02:27 pm | | | Dear Caz,I know I am outrageous this is due in part to my make up for I am used to dealing with outrageous people.But believe me you have not seen how outrageous I can be when it comes to getting at the truth.Also dont take it for granted that this exercise is being done for my benefit alone because it is not.I am not alone in wishing for the truth to be known so dont assume that I am. The general public who were conned have a right to know the truth at the end of the day. As far as I am concerned that diary is a fake.The FSS need a letter from a solictor describing what tests are required.Mr smith is in a far better position to state in detail to the FSS what tests he feels are required ( he is the owner of the fake diary) rather than myself.It is only right that the letter should come from his legal rep stating what tests are required. He would then be given an estimate for the work.When such an estimate is given only then should plans be made to try and find where the money is to come from. So dont jump the gun. I never stated to Mr Smith that he should pay for the tests but I did expect him to obtain a letter from his solicitor asking what tests may be reqired and the cost of such tests. I have spent time and money on this and I am not pleading poverty and it is not as if he cannot afford a simple solictor's letter.Mr Smith has made it plain that he cannot afford a letter from his solicitor and if anyone believes that then they must also believe the diary is genuine. Lets cut the crap I dont believe he cannot afford such a letter and he insults me with such a statement. It would appear that Mr Peter Birchwood is correct in saying that Mr Smith does not want the FSS to conduct tests.Let me state that this diary con has been a bloody joke from day one. Why is this one may ask.Well it seems to me that a lot of people termed 'experts' involved in ripper and other research would not know the truth if it bit them.Even Shirley Harrison is now being termed a world renowned ripper expert. Iv'e never heard such bull***t.It's about time this subject was sorted out once and for all.Talk about the blind leading the blind.And since when have ripper 'whatever they are called' been experts in fraud or forgery.Some people should leave crime to those who are either involved in crime or have a great deal of experience in such matters. Also the only place where the diary is still in debate is on this casebook.It is dead elsewhere.A good kick up the backside would not go amiss with some who have been involved in this charade.Please dont expect bull***t or lies from me because that is not how I work. I speak the truth as I see it and if that offends people then that is their problem.I often find that it it these same people who try to bull***t me and try to fill me with untruths.It is time you got on the right side of the fence Caz. The people that matter to me are those that have the ability to see the truth when faced with it.The rest can just ignore me. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 07:09 pm | | | Caz, PS. How dare Robert Smith suggest that the necessary resources come from those attending the Bournmouth conference.I see that as outrageous. Has this man no sense of honour.Robert Smith owes it to the general public to leave no stone unturned in determining the validity of the work.He and others have made money from the public over this matter.Was it not Mr Smith who placed this rubbish onto the open market and was it not a court who made the order that certain details be placed on the cover of the book to warn the public before it was published.Mr Smith was not prepared to do that.Also why do you feel the need to mention the name of Melvin Harris? You are wrong to assume that I feel tests need to be done to back him up. You have no valid reason for making such a remark. As far as I am concerned he does not need backing up. Such a comment is out of order.Get back into the kitchen with you. :-) |
Author: Robert Smith
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 09:03 am | | Dear Mr Edwards,
Your posts of 22nd and 23rd August were rude and absurd.
I responded promptly to your proposal to make the diary available to the Forensic Science Service, subject to a couple of sensible conditions, which I have clearly set out twice on these boards.
I do not think it reasonable of the Forensic Science Service to insist, that correspondence with them must be conducted through solicitors, but as you do, and as it is your campaign to prove the diary a fake through their tests, you go ahead. I choose not to spend any part of my hard-earned salary on fees for “a letter from a solicitor” as you put it, as well as for the many more solicitor’s letters, which would surely follow it.
As for the contents of a letter, a solicitor can draft my requirements from my last post to you, without any further input from me. If you and your supporters are finding it unpalatable to raise the payment for a solicitor’s correspondence, how are you going to organise the funding for the thousands of pounds, which will be required for the actual tests? I have noted, that you don’t expect me to pay for them.
Robert Smith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 09:45 am | | Hi Ivor,
Just before I get back into the bedroom - sorry, kitchen – can I just make the following points? Thanks.
Firstly, it is not Robert who ‘requires’ the FSS to conduct more tests on the diary – it is you. Robert has explained to you very patiently, as I have previously, how useless it would be if they simply sent for someone like Dr. Baxendale, ex-Home Office, who made a fundamental error over the earliest commercial use of synthetic dyestuffs when previously asked to report on the diary ink. Where is the logic in criticising the choice of previous experts, then demanding that a further test be commissioned, with the chance that one of those experts could be called on again this time round? What would make your choice an improvement on those made by others before you?
Secondly, Robert wrote ‘I do not have the resources to fund tests by the Home Office or to employ solicitors to write to them.’ [my emphasis]
It’s obvious that this has nothing to do with what Robert can or cannot afford, and means he is simply not prepared to fritter away good money on some whim of yours, that the Home Office is somehow the answer to all our prayers, and can deliver a swift death-blow to the document which happens to get up your nose so much. I think that speaks quite a lot for Robert’s husbandry and your own recklessness with other people’s money.
Thirdly, I did enjoy the bit about people leaving crime to those who are involved in crime. But who did you have in mind? You say the general public has a right to know the truth, and that it’s about time this subject was sorted out once and for all. So why expect Robert to organise new forensic tests in a bid to learn the truth, if you are confident that Melvin Harris has beaten him to it, already knows it, and has the necessary proof, as he has claimed? If you truly believe the general public has a right to know, why shouldn’t they get the whole truth from Melvin’s lips, thus saving everyone further wasted time, effort, money and pointless arguments? Or don’t you think Melvin can sort it out once and for all?
Moreover, leaving aside the minor mystery of how you know the diary is ‘dead’ in all parts of the known universe outside the casebook (telepathy perhaps? Or have you informers placed strategically round the globe?), I’m left wondering how many people you estimate are left to benefit from Robert, or you, or anyone else for that matter, putting them straight. Even you must see that, by your own reckoning, the actual numbers still waiting to hear the truth must be far too small to justify Robert indulging you on this one.  But I’m sure if we ask him nicely he will give us both ‘a good kick up the backside’ for still being 'involved in this charade'. Go on, you know you want to.
Now, where has that kitchen gone? I’ll have to ask hubby for directions.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 02:53 pm | | Dear Mr Smith,
My letter was no more absurd than the one you wrote proposing that members of the Bournmouth conference help raise contributions.Whether or not it is reasonable of the FSS to insist on a solicitor's letter is neither here nor there. At no time have I said it was a reasonable requirement as you have wrongly stated.I made no comment stating it reasonable or otherwise. It is Home Office policy and I cant argue with it.I have been assured that no further letter would be required from a solicitor after the initial one stating what tests would be required.Yet you for some reason believe that others letters would surely follow. I find such a comment feeble in content to say the least.It appears that you are clutching at straws for exuses.You wrote,If you and your supporters are finding it unpalatable to raise payment for a solicitor's correspondence, how are you going to organise the funding for the thousands of pounds,which will be required for the actual tests? Again like others you assume too much so let me make one thing quite clear to you I act alone in this matter.Also the answer to your question is my problem not yours. You are right in stating that I dont expect you to pay for the tests, I never did because it is not in your interest to do so.The FSS contacted me today and I was informed of certain matters relating to the diary. Also I spoke to a detective from Scotland Yard's fraud department some days ago in connection with the diary.What I was told was rather promising in the circumstances.This case could well be concluded without tests on the diary being undertaken.Tests are but one option open at the moment. Other avenues exist which can achieve the final goal. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 03:15 pm | | | Caz, I was not aware that Robert Smith appointed you his spokesperson? Who am I dealing with here you or Robert Smith? What is this rubbish about Dr Baxendale. I made it quite clear to the FSS that if tests should be performed by them then they should be conducted by someone who has had no previous dealings with the diary.I thought I also made this clear on the casebook.If you have a bee in your bonnet about Melvin Harris then take it elsewhere because I am not interested.This is not about him but you would appear to think otherwise by dragging his name into your posts.And if you believe that the diary is debated elsewhere as it is on the casebook then dream on.By the way it's not directions you want to ask your hubby for. :-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 06:46 pm | | Hi Ivor,
I'm sorry you were not aware that Robert had appointed me as his spokesperson. Robert is equally unaware. You can 'deal' with whoever you wish. At the moment you appear to be responding to both of us.
I never said I believed the diary was debated elsewhere - it was you who assured me it was not. I simply wondered how you knew.
'Other avenues exist which can achieve the final goal.'
Great. I'll let you get on with it then, since you obviously have little faith in Melvin's avenues. I'm so glad that the FSS are clear about your demands, although it looks like you won't be needing their help after all.
Love,
Caz
PS I managed to find my way back to the kitchen unaided, but as it's our 19th wedding anniversary today, hubby took me out for a meal, so he unchained me for a few hours. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 26 August 2001 - 02:25 am | | | Caz,Surely you jest with me. What sort of a man would unchain a woman for a few hours? Have you lost your marbles? Any self-respecting married married man would have place the kitchen on a set of wheels powered by a German V1 rocket engine. The kitchen with the 'little woman' in it would then be launched along the road ( so straight and narrow, with a bend in the middle) in the general direction of the Pie and Mash Shop.The amount of faith I have in Melvin Harris and his avenues is quite unknown to you.But that was a silly remark. You are not in a position to make statements like that.Tell me why you persist in bringing his name into this matter when he is clearly not involved. Do you do it just for jolly or simply because you dont like the man and so take a 'hit' at him at every given moment.Because it is very obvious somthing is amiss. Would it have anything to do with the fact that Mr Smith is anti Mr Harris and you are pro- 'Robert' as you refer to Mr Smith.I just wondered about your motive for doing so. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 26 August 2001 - 07:21 am | | Hi Ivor,
As you will see from previous posts, I nearly always refer to Melvin as 'Melvin', only adding 'Harris' for clarity's sake. And I rarely, if ever, address or refer to anyone posting here by their surname alone (ie without 'Mr.'), unlike Melvin, with his less than charming 'Begg' this, and 'Fido' that.
Now you have confirmed that you consider Melvin is 'clearly not involved', that's fine. I just didn't want to exclude him prematurely from a discussion about your continued and commendable efforts to get at the proof that the diary is a modern fake - considering Melvin has claimed to have that proof already. I hope Robert will be highly flattered that you have turned to him publicly for help, now Melvin is 'clearly' no longer involved and able to do so, from your point of view.
And don't let's forget your insistence that, apart from perhaps a small handful of fellow posters to these message boards, everyone thinks the diary is already dead and buried, which continues to beg the question why you feel Robert's input is so vital, and who for, and why you criticise us both if we don't immediately share your optimism.
Love,
Caz
PS Yes, I must admit, hubby would be acting pretty recklessly if he dared to unchain Caz for too long. Heaven knows what I'd get up to. But thankfully he enjoys setting me free so he can watch me typing my little billets-doux to you. Kinky, or what? |
Author: R Court
Monday, 27 August 2001 - 05:23 am | | Hi all,
Other means are available beside the FSS for carrying out tests on the diary and the ink. The problem IMHO is that until now, all tests that have been carried out have failed to convince everyone. As Caz points out, what could ensure that any further tests would achieve a more convincing result?
I have the profesional means, for example, to carry out a full LIFS (Laser-Induced Fluorescence Spectroscopy) on ink and paper, but even if this led to good chronological constituent detection there will still be elements of doubt, as earlier tests on the diary have proved. We remember that these earlier testers were not complete idiots, even if a little confusion may have existed sometimes.
In any case, the results will be interpreted in as many ways as there are interested people to make them, if the past is any guide. Quo Vadis.
Regards
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 04:59 am | | From Keith Skinner to Ivor Edwards
Dear Mr Edwards
Monitoring the Diary Boards as I do, kind courtesy of Caroline, I was extremely interested and impressed to learn from your post of Friday August 24th 2001 – 02:53 pm that your diligent enquiries had determined:
“This case could well be concluded without tests on the diary being undertaken.”
Of equal importance is your further assertion that:-
“Other avenues exist which can achieve the final goal.”
Apart from Peter Birchwood, I think you are the only person, (since Melvin Harris’s sadly now discredited hollow claim), to actually offer us the hope of resolving this bitter and divisive controversy. All credit to you. I am sure others will add their voices of encouragement for you to succeed where so many, including myself, have lamentably failed. I shall be eagerly and closely following your progress and revelations, allowing it is your intention to share the results of your investigation with the Board, and will be at the head of the queue to offer congratulations when you have nailed the people responsible for creating these artefacts.
If you are able to achieve this “final goal” before the Oxford Summit in October, (and surely you should be participating?) – then a lot of people will be beholden to you!
Incidentally, would I be correct in assuming this type of welcome constructive input to be the basis of your meeting with Robert Smith in late October/early November 1993? I still have not clarified with Robert the precise date of your meeting with him at his London office, but as soon as I’ve managed to find this out, I’ll let you know.
Best Wishes
Keith Skinner |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 06:18 pm | | Dear Mr Skinner,
Other avenues do indeed exist which can achieve the final goal.For as I have stated before there is more than one way to skin a cat. However, it is not my intention to place my progress and revelations on this board or any other public forum. Such action would only serve to warn others of my intentions.If you wish to contact me in private then that is another matter.Caroline can give you my e-mail address Also this could end up as a police inquiry so I would not be at liberty to place information on these boards under such circumstances.I have no invite to the Oxford Summit in October.Also I cannot see the police working that quickly.May I inquire as to your relationship with Robert Smith?
Best Wishes, Ivor Edwards |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 12:41 am | | Caz,
I don't mean to interrupt this flow you have going with Ivor, but I noticed you're posting for Keith Skinner. Could you give him a message for me? Tell him I said he's the guru of Ripper research and I really enjoyed 'Letters From Hell', as well as his other work. Also that I'm looking forward to future projects from him as well as (holding breath) perhaps getting his views on a project I'm working on, and maybe an interview for Ripper Notes sometime in the future. I don't want to wear out my welcome, so that's all for now. Thanks a mil.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Caz, sorry about misinterpreting your quote from Jon on the other board about him not posting about the Diary as if it were YOU that didn't post. I must have still been reeling from Joseph's last post. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 05:10 am | | Hi Tom,
You can interrupt my flow anytime.
I have been sending all posts from the Diary boards to Keith, so yours will be no exception.
By the way, I can't wait to get my paws on 'Letters From Hell'. It's a ripping by-product that interests me as much as the mystery of who wrote the diary - and what kicks they got out of it.
Hi Ivor,
Gosh, fancy the police wanting to get involved again! I do hope this won't be another little exercise of theirs in not 'working that quickly', as you put it so aptly, after what we've been witnessing lately - or wasting public money might be an even better way of describing it. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 05:44 am | | From Keith Skinner To Ivor Edwards
Dear Mr Edwards
Thank you very much for your response to my post.
This reads to me like you have a bite on a promising lead, especially as there appears to be the strong possibility of an enjoined police enquiry. I’m sure you are very aware that, back in February 1995, Melvin Harris did refer to “…a criminal conspiracy to forge and defraud.” – but, as you know, Melvin’s privileged information is unfortunately embargoed. So it does sound like you have discovered another “avenue” enabling you to deliver that which, regrettably, Melvin was unable to, but achieving the same “final goal” – thereby providing Melvin with a happy release from his predicament.
Do you think it wise for us to correspond on this matter in private? Any ensuing police enquiry is very likely to pull me in – given Peter Birchwood’s publicly expressed inferred suspicions and innuendo about my role in the Diary investigation, which doesn’t just stop with my bungling and incompetence! In view of the strength of your information – which I fully understand and appreciate why you are reluctant to place in a public forum – I’m wondering about the viability of the Oxford Summit in October. What do you think? Are they all wasting their time?
You very reasonably ask about my relationship with Robert Smith. In 1986 Robert was commissioning editor for The Ripper Legacy, which was a book I co-authored with Martin Howells. For the past couple of years Robert has acted as my Literary Agent.
Best Wishes
Keith Skinner |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 05:46 am | | Hi Ivor,
As I was posting Keith’s latest message, it struck me that the Oxford Summit is not the only example of people wasting their time if your own investigation is going to come up trumps. Ongoing enquiries, by people still beavering away behind the scenes, who have promised to report back to the boards with any news, would also be rendered pointless. Has Peter Birchwood, for example, been banging his head against a brick wall getting to grips with Steve Powell down under? Are his bids to get to the bottom of Outhwaite & Litherland’s lot-numbering system going to go for a song when you bring the final gavel down? Has he been barking up the wrong tree with Mr. Bark-Jones over when Mike’s Sphere Guide first found a lodging place with him? (Karoline Leach put it down to laziness or incompetence that the exact date had not been established by Shirley and co – your own information could pre-empt a similar accusation against Peter.)
It might be a good idea, if you haven’t already thought of this, for you and Peter to get your heads together privately on this one, to save him strolling down any more needless avenues, if the police, with your help, will soon be saying “Let’s be ‘avenue”.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 05:48 am | | From Keith Skinner To Tom Westcott
Thank you very much for your kind message, although I suspect many people will balk at your flattering description of my being “…the guru of Ripper research.” It’s not a position I aspire to or merit by any means; indeed, as I’ve now inveigled my name to appear on books beside four established writers on the subject, I surely now have become the “Whore of Ripperology”!
I was pleased to read that you enjoyed ‘Letters From Hell’. The publishers have produced a superb looking book and I could not have been better served, on this project, than by my co-author Stewart Evans, (together with Rosie, his partner, who always makes me feel welcome at their home) – and whose support, professionalism and painstaking conscientiousness, never ceases to impress me. Let’s also not forget Martin Fido’s informed and cheerful ‘Foreword’ which I think sets the tone of the book so well.
Regarding your own potential project – you are probably better off seeking Stewart’s advice and observations. Both of us share the same philosophy that what this study always desperately requires is the injection of fresh, relevant contemporary information, rather than just the reworking of old material.
And regarding an interview for Ripper Notes – preferably not!
All Good Wishes
Keith Skinner |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 05 September 2001 - 02:32 pm | | Dear Mr Skinner,
Please exuse the delay in answering your post but I have been very busy. You asked if I think it wise for us to correspond on this matter. I will be at the conference so perhaps we could chew the cud so to speak on this question.In relation to the viability of the Oxford Summit in October and whether or not they are all wasting their time depends on how far they are prepared to go in achieving their aim.In short you get out what you put in.For example I wanted answers to the ripper murders and it took me nine years to achieve the task.Who knows it might take me years to get the answers I want in relation to the Diary. But I am prepared to go to greater lengths than most people would be prepared to go to achieve this aim.If you read my book you will note the lengths I am prepared to take in achieving my goal.Thank you for informing me of your relationship with Robert Smith. I am sorry to learn of the altercation between yourself and Peter Birchwood. It would appear that those responsible for the diary con have a lot to answer for in more ways than one.Very Best Wishes. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 05 September 2001 - 02:52 pm | | Hi Caroline,
Only time will tell if Peter Birchwood is banging his head against a brick wall as far as Steve Powell is concerned.However, It is an avenue not to be avoided. I wish Peter luck in his endeavour. I may not be the one to bring the final gaven down as you so quaintly suggested. I cannot really answer your questions about Mr Birchwood and his many branches of inquiry into the matter of the diary.I cannot really speak for him.Perhaps he knows something others do not.He is certainly not to be written off and I concider that to be sound advice to anyone.And talking of advice I might just take you up on yours.Many thanks and best wishes. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 06:55 am | | Hi Ivor,
You wrote:
'...whether or not they are all wasting their time depends on how far they are prepared to go in achieving their aim....it might take me years to get the answers I want in relation to the Diary. But I am prepared to go to greater lengths than most people would be prepared to go to achieve this aim.'
What answers do you 'want' in relation to the diary, Ivor? Forgive me if I am getting the wrong end of the stick here, but do you see this as some kind of competition, between those getting on with their enquiries, to eventually prove their own beliefs correct? It will be quite impossible for Shirley ever to prove Maybrick was Jack if he wasn't. Equally, years spent trying to prove the diary is the modern 'con' you want or believe it to be won't get you anywhere unless it's the truth. And if it is, and there are several people alive today who know the truth already, either because they were personally involved, or possess conclusive inside information, you can bet it will all come out eventually - these things tend to.
About Peter, you wrote:
'Perhaps he knows something others do not.'
I don't think that can be the case, Ivor, because Peter has said he would report back if he got anywhere with certain specific diary enquiries. Why would he want to keep anything else that was relevant and important to himself? (he's not Melvin.) If Peter does know something new, which helps solve the mystery once and for all, I'm sure he will let Shirley know in Oxford. But if what he knows doesn't solve anything (as Keith has said regarding his own information), it doesn't need bringing to the table and sharing.
I agree with you that Peter is certainly not to be written off. I know just how hard it can be to get answers to what appear on the surface to be the simplest of questions regarding the diary story. I am sure Peter must be beginning to appreciate this fact too, as he follows some of the avenues explored by other investigators before him.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 03:49 pm | | Hi Caroline,
The answers I want relate to the precise roles which our players in the game took.What was the true involvement of Anne and Mike Barrett? Anne's father was involved but to what degree? Let me just say this for the record. Anne Barrett is up to her neck in this scam.It is about time a great deal of pressure was brought to bear on her ( from all directions ) to rattle her cage. And if anyone tells me that she has faced pressure then they dont know the meaning of the word. The heat in the kitchen needs to be turned up. If she had any sense she would put up her hands before it is too late. She has had an easy ride of it up until now.Far too much poncing around has taken place for my liking.She might fool a lot of people but I am not one of them.This saga about the diary has been one big 'balls up' from day one. And if most of the experts cant work it out then they can kiss goodbye trying to identify the ripper.Who has interrogated Anne Barrett with the experience of a lifetime in dealing with criminals and con artists? The police so far have kept away. People Like Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison have spoken to her.But with all due respect to them such people have no experience in dealing with crime or criminals. It is akin to sending someone from the salvation army to question a devious criminal.I think it was Martin Fido who said Anne Barrett would run out of a room if she was under pressure. I am glad to know someone is aware of the coup. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 07:16 pm | | | Caroline,Ps. I certainly dont see it as a competition. I simply see it as getting at the truth.Some people are simply prepared to go to greater lengths to get at the truth than others.There are many various ways of getting at the truth in matters such as we are dealing with here. |
|
|
|
|
