|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14 September 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Forensic Evidence:
Archive through 14 September 2001
Author: Michael Hopper
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 09:37 pm |        | I am new to this discussion but have tried to read everything here on the Casebook and elsewhere on the matter of the ink on the "diary".
Having been an ink chemist for more than 20 years I offer the opinion that others have implied. It may well be a very costly effort to accurately date the ink on the manuscript. I am no expert on iron gall inks (if that is indeed the type of ink in question) but know a lot about iron oxide inks used in cheque (checks for those in parts of North America) printing.
What might distinguish the age of the ink would be any organic components added to the ink, the dates for synthetic additives is fairly well documented but not many of the "natural" organic products that might be used in the ink. This will require high precision chromatography and mass spectrometry. The composition of the inorganic parts of the ink (iron and many other elements) would have to be performed and compared to any database of iron compounds used over the period in question I believe this is between 1888 and 1990). What analysis that was done earlier is hardly fact based [the reports are very confused].
It may just be possible to get a Carbon 14 dating of the ink from the galls used in its manufacture. This may not be as accurate as everyone would like but it might tie things down to the closest 50 years.
Given the expectations of the different contributors to this discussion it would be impossible to provide a definitive dating without a massive study. Is that worth the effort?
I have a question on why would anyone (including Maybrick himself) use an iron gall ink? My research indicates that such writers as Charles Dickens converted from from that type of ink to a blue dye ink between 1835 and 1840. Before those dates he used iron gall after that the blue dye. Was this ink chosen so that the manuscript would "appear" old?
Regards to all
Mike |
Author: R.J.P.
Friday, 07 September 2001 - 12:05 am | | | Hello Mike & everyone. I'd like to hear a concise explanation to those who have studied the ink and/or the various ink tests [and perhaps particularly an explanation by Dr. Eastaugh] why the results of Dr. Baxendale's solubility test are so widely ignored. I can fully understand why some of the other ink tests are controversial, but this test seems simple enough that even a layman can appreciate it. And it was given the complete endorsement of Joe Nickell, one of the world's best known document examiners, and the author of two standard texts on the subject. A sample of the ink from the diary was put in a mixture of distilled water & Pyridine, and 'gave up color' almost immediately, and left only a 'small amount of black residue' on the paper. The conclusion was that the ink was 'barely dry on the pages', the implication being that ink that had been on the page for several years or longer would have taken more time to dissolve and would have left a darker residue. Now I fully admit I am nothing but a schlep when it comes to chemistry, but I've never heard any real explanation of how the results of this test could have been flawed or even an explanation of how Dr. Eastaugh's alternative solubility test worked. I guess the reason I accept Baxendale's result is that it seems so commonsensical. Now, perhaps I'm hopelessly deluded or stubborn, but unless someone can explain how this test could be flawed or its results false, I can't really see any reason why I should currently doubt the opinions of Baxendale & Nickell--particularly when their conclusions of the very recent composition date for the diary so neatly agree with my own general view that the textual indications [ie., the police list, etc.] suggests that the thing was composed after 1988. Throw in the less than satisfactory explanations that the diary's two original owners have given to the public, am I really being unreasonable in believing that this thing is almost brand new? |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 07 September 2001 - 04:23 am | | Greetings, Michael:
Welcome to the list and thank you for your contribution.
While I cannot claim in any way to be knowledgeable about the ink used in the Diary, I believe you are correct in your assumption that whomever forged this document probably thought that the use of an iron gall ink would make it look older.
It has been stated that in between the time the Diary was first seen in London in spring 1992 and the present day, the look of the ink changed and that it acquired a bronzed look that it did not initially possess when examined by the document examiner at the British Museum. If this is so, it would seem to me to be very significant information and would indicate composition of the document shortly prior to spring 1992 when Michael Barrett took the Diary to London literary agent Doreen Montgomery.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 07 September 2001 - 05:23 am | | Hi Chris, Michael, All,
Just for argument's sake, if such a document as this diary had been kept closed for a long while, then, from say 1991, was suddenly exposed to the air, and thereafter constantly opened and pored over, might that in itself not cause the ink to change and possibly 'acquire a bronzed look', over a period of time from the first to later examinations? Just wondering, because I've asked this question about exposure to the elements of a long-closed book several times now, but no one has yet responded.
Hi Ivor,
You wrote:
'If she [Anne] had any sense she would put up her hands before it is too late.'
Too late for what? Have you any evidence that Anne knew the diary was a modern fake when Mike took it to London? If not, and there is no such evidence, why would Anne ever need to confess to anything at all? You have convinced yourself that 'Anne Barrett is up to her neck in this scam', and that she is some kind of 'devious criminal'. Others may think so too. How could it get any worse for Anne if she didn't 'put up her hands'?
If, on the other hand, there is evidence that Anne was involved in forgery, why do you think Mike hasn't come up with it by now, considering he has been desperate to prove her July 1994 statement false? Was Anne reckless and stupid to come up with a story that Mike could easily have disproved if he chose to - just at a time when the hatred and bitterness between the estranged couple was so intense? Or was she safe in the knowledge that he couldn't, because he didn't know anything himself? Either way, this woman, if she was involved, doesn't sound to me like the sort to 'put her hands up' to anything, or crack under pressure.
So what, if anything, do you think was Mike's involvement in all this? And who actually penned the diary?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 07 September 2001 - 01:43 pm | | Caroline, At the moment Anne Barrett has not yet faced criminal charges but the possibility remains that she just might when the truth is known. And please don't try to tell me that she would not crack under pressure if faced with serious criminal charges. She should come clean now. I have known harder people than her to crack under such pressure.As for Mike Barrett he lost his credibility a long time ago and with his track record no court would believe what he said now.Only a fool would produce him in court as a witness. If I knew who penned the diary I would not place such information in the public domain. Such information would be shown to others. Anne Barrett has been wined and dined and encouraged to prove her case.She has been treated with kid gloves.She does not know what real pressure is.Anyone who believes her to be innocent in this matter should get some experience
in the subject of crime and criminals. Also I don't hear her threatening to sue me and others for libel.Boy do I wish she would try. So let's all wake up to this situation.Anne Barrett knows the truth behind this story and she is involved. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 07 September 2001 - 07:01 pm | | | Caroline, Had a phone call from the FSS. They can not be sure that their tests on the diary will prove conclusive.However, I was informed that new methods do turn up. We can put a man on the Moon and send a rocket to Mars but cant tell how old a drop of ink is. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 07:41 am | | Hi Ivor,
Unfortunately, for you - and fortunately for the sake of justice - no amount of 'experience in the subject of crime and criminals' can ever take the place of good solid evidence. This is the only way Anne will ever be 'faced with serious criminal charges', and made to 'crack under pressure'.
Only Anne knows if evidence against her will ever be forthcoming. Of course, she may have been quaking in her boots all this time, expecting Mike, or Melvin, or Peter Birchwood, or your good self to one day say "Oh to hell with it, I'll place my information in the public domain" or "Right, let's get this over with, I'll show my information to others". If someone has the evidence, and Anne knows it, she must be wondering just how the hell she has survived for so long.
But if the belief in Anne's guilt is based on gut feeling, and she knows it can never be any more than that, she won't be feeling any pressure at all, never mind crack under it, will she?
I must say, it seems to me increasingly likely that she has very little to fear from anyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 11:15 am | | | Caroline,Let me explain something to you. If one or two people make a signed statement to the effect that Anne Barrett gave certain information to them indicating that she was involved in the forgery and deception of the diary she is in trouble. And it she was talking to many people in Australia about the project when she was a nurse and they come foward ( including other nurses, etc.)then again she is in trouble. It will only take a couple of people to get the ball rolling. As I said before on several occasions there is more than one way to skin a cat.Many avenues exist not just ink tests on the diary. Besides ink tests will not determine who forged it only that it was forged. If more than one person was involved than we have a conspiracy to defraud.And this opens up other avenues to explore.Please do not assume too much from my comments. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 01:56 pm | | Hi Ivor,
What I assume from your latest comments is that in reality you know about as much as I do about whether Anne was involved in forging the diary. Basically, what you have just said amounts to, "if there are many people (apart from Mike, of course) willing to swear to Anne's involvement, then she is in trouble" - I may be a bit slow, but I hardly needed you to explain that to me, Ivor.  Like you, I hope such people can be traced. I also hope their information will really help get at the truth at last, whatever that may be. Like you, I still want the truth to be told, even if the rest of the world is bored rigid by the whole affair.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Michael Hopper
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 02:43 pm | | Follow-up on the Ink Tests.
R.J.P. asks "why the results of Dr. Baxendale's solubility test are so widely ignored".
I am not sure of why ignore the test, the test certainly would indicate to me that the ink had little time to form the black iron oxide when it was tested. The observation that it 'gave up colour' is less interesting as he does not state (at least not in anything I have read) what colour was observed in the water/pyridine solution. Many natural and synthetic dyes are known to have been added to iron gall ink recipes over the ages, all would 'give up colour' if they remained in the ink. It could have been a black dye such as nigrosine; a blue dye such as indigo or even a red dye.
The more interesting test would be to have the test repeated with the ink today (about 10 years on) to see if the ink contains more black iron oxide than it did when Dr. Baxendale first tested the ink. If the ink has changed lustre in that time it was put on the paper in the recent past - not 50 or 100 years ago. |
Author: Michael Hopper
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 03:09 pm | | Caz, others
Caz wonders if repeat recent exposure of the document would cause "the ink to change and possibly 'acquire a bronzed look', over a period of time from the first to later examinations?"
From what I have read of the characteristics of iron gall inks the ink would change appearance over a period of 4 to 5 years and it would change faster with exposure than without any but ink in such "book" would still age as the major elements that are involve in the changes are oxygen and water vapour. Both of these elements would have fairly easy access to the ink in a closed book unless it had been hermetically sealed.
As I understand the paper of the book is of a rather coarse texture (not highly compressed parchment) that would aid in the migration of oxygen and water vapour to the ink.
Both of these factors suggest to me that if the ink has changed its appearance over the past 10 years it had likely not been applied to the paper more than 10 years ago.
Regards
mike |
Author: Michael Hopper
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 03:28 pm | | The age of the ink.
Ivor wonders why "We can put a man on the Moon and send a rocket to Mars but cant tell how old a drop of ink is."
My answer is that we have not spent the money required to achieve that feat. Out of interest I put together a "Request for Analysis" document that could be used to obtain the data that I would think is required to satisfy myself when the ink was put on the paper. This included full chemical analysis of the ink components (organic and inorganic), the size and number of black iron oxide particles in the ink and a request for C14 aging estimates. All the tests had to be compared to at least three reference samples from inked documents known to be authentic and dated and from the region of the country where the writing was done. This means 9 inked paper samples from Liverpool area dating near 1888, 1950-5 and 1985-1990. [What exact samples to use remains to be determined but suffice for a "reality check"].
Checking my records for such types of request in the recent past, I estimate that the complete analysis of the 10 samples["diary" plus 9 references] would cost close to US$500,000.
Is that of the same order of getting a man on the moon?
Regards
mike |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 07:32 pm | | | 500,000 US dollars to perform satisfactory tests on the diary!!!!!! I'd let them send me to the moon for that. In fact I might just send the above e-mail to the FSS to see what they have to say on the matter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 08:02 pm | | | Caroline, In answer to a remark you made in relation to- no amount of 'experience in the subject of crime or criminals' can ever take the place of good solid evidence. It is only due to such experience that good solid evidence can be obtained. How the hell do you think the police work ? Many times have I known good evidence to be obtained which was only due to the experience of those in search of the evidence. If one has no knowledge of the subject matter, in particular how to deal with criminals then one is at a disadvantage.It is only through such experience that one knows how to obtain evidence. |
Author: Michael Hopper
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 09:29 pm | | Ivor
The determination of the age of an iron dall ink is a far from trivial. That is why I scoped out the comprehensive test expectations. I know it is going to be expensive but to be really certain you have to be comprehensive. The work required is extremely detailed and therefore, time consuming. Many tests have to be run on each sample.
I would encourage you to send my earlier e-mail to the FSS; they might well come back to you that the reference samples are too few and further checks might be necessary.
Believe me, the required analysis is on the same scale of difficulty as putting a man on the moon. By the way the high tech analytical service research groups overheaded costs amountb to about US$300,000 per person per year. The complete ink age determination should take about 3 months of work by six qualified researchers. This is not a task such as proving a document was tampered with for criminal purposes.
regards
mike |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 04:45 am | | | Mike, Thank you for such interesting information. I had no idea that such ink tests would be so expensive and complicated. As you know the ink tests done so far have caused quite a debate and a lot of trouble in one way or another.I would like to make it quite clear that my intention to send your post to the FSS is not due to doubt on my part.They have not mentioned C14 tests and I feel your post may be of value.Nothing ventured nothing gained as the saying goes.You certainly seem to know more than most ( myself included) on the subject. Best wishes. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 06:33 am | | Hi Ivor,
In your opinion, would you say that an investigator has a better chance of obtaining good solid evidence if he actually meets, interviews and closely monitors his suspects' reactions under questioning?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 09:45 am | | Hi Michael,
Thank you very much for all your interesting observations, including your response to my hypothetical question relating to visible signs of age one might expect in an ink which had previously been protected from the elements.
You wrote:
'Both of these elements [oxygen and water vapour] would have fairly easy access to the ink in a closed book unless it had been hermetically sealed.’
According to Anne Graham, the diary had been kept at the bottom of a trunk full of other bits and pieces. The trunk was at the back of a cupboard. When her father eventually cleared this out, Anne says he gave her the diary, which she then kept hidden behind another cupboard before tying it up in brown paper and handing it over to Tony Devereux, allegedly sometime in 1991.
Again, speaking hypothetically, would this not make the slightest difference? Would such conditions still have allowed ‘fairly easy access’ to oxygen and water vapour over the years?
You also wrote:
‘…if the ink has changed its appearance over the past 10 years it had likely not been applied to the paper more than 10 years ago.'
In that case, it might just be worth checking the evidence (and whose it is) that the ink has indeed changed in appearance since it was first examined.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 02:51 pm | | | Caroline,Interviewing a suspect is only one part of the procedure. Reactions do not count as solid evidence in a court of law. If the suspect admits guilt under questioning then that is fine. If the suspect does not admit guilt then various methods of investigating the crime are undertaken to find the evidence to gain a convivtion. For example witnesses may be found or the ongoing investigation may well unearth other evidence.Many avenues exist in such investigations. The police have not investigated this case to date. To my knowledge this saga has not been FULLY investigated in the field as a criminal matter by anyone to date including private detectives.Hence the unsatisfactory state of affairs. With all due respect most if not all people who have put questions to Anne Barrett can hardly be concidered experts in dealing with criminals. It's akin to getting the services of a plumber to build a brick wall.My message is simple, if one wants to catch criminals then get someone with the experience to deal with them and do the job as it should be done. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 02:58 pm | | | Caroline,Sorry it should read conviction not convivtion.:-) |
Author: Michael Hopper
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 03:48 pm | | Caz
In response to your description of the storage of the book if that was all that was done the ink in should age quite quickly. If you had said that it was wrapped in brown paper that was coated with a thick wax layer [such as that used by butchers in the past] then it would age more slowly.
What puzzles me with the story you recount of Anne's handling of the book is why was that item kept without being opened and at least read?
I still believe using a repeat of Dr Baxendales water/pyridine test on the ink today would provide a clue to the issue of when the ink was applied to the paper. If the test results are identical then the extended testing will be necessary, if the ink behaves like an "old" ink [more black iron oxide remaining after treatment with that solution] then the ink was applied in the recent past [last 10 years or so].
Hope this helps
Regards
mike |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 08:56 am | | Hi Ivor,
I'm glad you agree that interviewing a suspect is a normal part of the procedure in an investigation of this nature. (I don't think Melvin Harris has ever seen it as a part of his procedure to interview Anne Graham, for instance, but then he works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.)
My own admittedly limited understanding of the way to 'catch criminals' would also include establishing that a crime had indeed been committed. And I believe the police have been unable to satisfy themselves on that score, which might be why the saga hasn't been 'FULLY investigated in the field as a criminal matter'.
Your message is indeed a simple one, Ivor. If there have been diary-forging criminals hanging around for the last ten years just asking to be caught - and we have people like you and Melvin, with the experience 'to deal with them and do the job as it should be done', it beats me why we are both still here talking about it.
Have you any solid evidence against any of the suspects or not?
Hi Michael,
I just don't know what to make of Anne's story, and what her father Billy said in support. Billy's step-granny, Elizabeth Formby, who was said to have left the diary to him, was illiterate. So it could theoretically have remained closed and unread until Billy finally opened it. Having little interest in books himself, Billy would no doubt have found the handwritten diary hard-going, so I could imagine him putting it away and forgetting about it. Anne would have opened and read the diary at some point, at least once, but she claims she just didn't take much interest - either to begin with, as a teenager, or later, when she was more concerned with her immediate domestic and marital problems than with an old book about Jack the Ripper.
I hope your suggestion for a repeat test will be considered - it sounds like a promising idea.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 02:37 pm | | Hi RJ,
Can I take you back to your recent post, in which you wrote about Dr. Baxendale's solubility test:
'...this test seems simple enough that even a layman can appreciate it. And it was given the complete endorsement of Joe Nickell, one of the world's best known document examiners...'
Could you please tell me where you read that document examiner Nickell was able to completely endorse the solubility test carried out by Baxendale? Thanks.
The problem seems to be that Dr. Eastaugh got a completely different result, and I thought I remembered his tests being endorsed by someone somewhere along the line too.
Also, going back to Chris George's point about the look of the ink changing and acquiring 'a bronzed look that it did not initially possess when examined by the document examiner at the British Museum', I have wondered whether this examiner ever went as far as checking closely for 'a bronzed look' in 1992. Voller, in 1995, had to take the diary over to the window before reporting a 'barely visible' and 'very light bronzing'. So it may be far from a documented fact that the diary ink has undergone any changes in appearance since 1992. I wonder if Robert Smith has noticed any?
If a simple way to prove the ink was applied to the paper recently was to show it still going through an ageing process that would have long since finished had the diary been written before 1987, I wonder why not one of the experts recommended carrying out a repeat test at a set interval of time, like the one for black iron oxide, as suggested by Michael Hopper?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 02:52 pm | | | ***Post Deleted Due to Objectionable Content*** |
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 04:52 pm | | Caz--I don't see how anyone could have 'endorsed' Dr. Eastaugh's findings about the solubility of the ink, when he himself stressed that they didn't really prove anything about the age of the ink. He wrote: "I think it would be very dangerous to quote [me]...saying I say the ink is Victorian, when I don't--merely that it could be. I also want to underline that I am unwilling to highlight that the ink behaves like the Victorian reference material without the qualifying statement that we cannot actually distinguish it on the basis of solubility from later inks of similar composition, and that the ink of the diary must equally behave like inks applied substantially later than 1889." [letter to the publishers of the diary, quoted by Kenneth Rendell, in Rendell's Report]. I still don't know what the details of Dr. Eastaugh's solubility test were and how it differed from Dr. Baxendale's, who certainly believed that it suggested that the ink was recently applied. Perhaps Eastaugh & Baxendale should have compared notes.
I'll try to hunt down my reference sometime soonish and get back to you; I thought it was in Nickell's book 'Detecting Forgery'. If I'm wrong, then I'm thinking of Kenneth Rendell, not exactly a small-fry in the world of document examination. Cheers, RP |
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 07:36 pm | | Caz--
"In contrast, a British examiner used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages." (page 194) [This refers to Baxendale's test]
--Dr. Joe Nickell, Detecting Forgery |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 10:11 am | | Hi Ivor,
Now calm down a bit my dear. Melvin has indeed put an enormous amount of effort into this case over the years. Are you seriously suggesting that he hasn't investigated Anne properly because no one offered to pay his expenses? That's priceless Ivor, and you accuse me of bad mouthing the man! If Melvin had felt it important to test his suspicions on the lady herself, I really don’t think a little financial embarrassment would have stood in his way for long.
I appreciate that you don’t see why you should pay out to investigate Anne, and test the gut feelings you have about her involvement. Being abusive and flinging your unsupported suspicions around on the internet may be a cheap alternative but it’s hardly a constructive one. And if you’re not careful people might get the idea you’ve been attending evening classes at the Melvin Harris Charm School.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Smith
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 10:18 am | | RJP, Chris, Michael, Caroline and Ivor
RJP quotes Dr Joe Nickell from his book Detecting Forgery, claiming that Dr Baxendale had “used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages”. This is a very free and unscientific paraphrasing, and not a “complete endorsement” as RJP suggests, of Dr Baxendale’s actual conclusion that the ink was “freely soluble”. Dr Nickell is a document examiner, not an ink analyst. In Ken Rendell’s team, which examined the diary in Chicago in 1992, and of which Joe Nickell was a member, it was Bob Kuranz, who did the ink tests. Kuranz duplicated Dr Eastaugh’s work and Rendell’s comment in his report was that: “the test he [Dr Eastaugh] did was very competently carried out.” That’s what I call a complete endorsement.
Dr Eastaugh’s findings from his solubility test was, that the diary had NOT been written in the period up to three to five years prior to his test in 1992. Beyond three to five years, it could have been written at any time, including 1888/9. Dr Eastaugh concludes in opposition to Dr Baxendale’s opinion: “the most we can say is that the ink is apparently well dried.”
Only Dr Baxendale has found the ink of the diary freely soluble, the same man, who didn’t know that nigrosine was in commercial use from 1867 – he said post 1918 at the earliest – and the same man, who wrote: “There was nothing to suggest the presence of iron.” All the other testers – Eastaugh, Kuranz and Leeds University – found iron as an ingredient of the diary ink.
Will a repetition of Dr Baxendale’s 1992 solubility test in 2001/2002, suggested by Michael, prove anything? Presumably, the ink, ten years later, will not be soluble, even if Baxendale was right, that it was soluble in 1992. The important question must be: Was Baxendale right in 1992, when Dr Eastaugh and, presumably, Bob Kuranz, didn’t find the ink freely soluble. His opinion must also be in question on the grounds, that he was so wrong about nigrosine and about the ink’s iron content.
One of the reasons for Dr Baxendale concluding there was no iron in the ink, which makes it turn brown over time, was that “there was no sign of such a brown colour.” In 1995, Dr Alec Voller on taking the diary to the window comments: “In one or two places there is some very slight bronzing – tilted to the light it can just be seen.” If it is “barely visible”, no wonder Dr Baxendale saw no sign of a brown colour. To my untutored eye six years later, I still do not observe any obvious bronzing, as Chris George has assumed would be the case, but I would prefer Dr Voller himself to make the comparison. Incidentally, Chris, the Curator of Manuscripts at the British Museum didn’t comment in 1992, on whether or not he saw bronzing, but he did say: “It looks authentic”. Those going to the Bournemouth Conference will be able to see the open diary for themselves, although it will remain under glass in a security case.
I note the FSS response to Ivor Edwards, which he reported on 7th September: “they cannot be sure that their tests on the diary will prove conclusive. However, I was informed that new methods do turn up”. So now we know it would have been a very poor use of my time and other people’s money to have negotiated the terms and conditions of testing the diary with the FSS, and for it to have been tested by them with inconclusive results.
I have no objection to further tests, providing they really do take us forward to a conclusion either way, and providing I am not asked to foot the bill to test someone else’s ideas.
Robert Smith |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 04:41 pm | | Dear Mr Smith, Like you I do not see the point of further tests if they cannot be conclusive.In all fairness I hasten to add that I never expected for a moment that you would foot the bill to test someone else's ideas.
Caroline,Please don't put words into my mouth in relation to Melvin Harris. Also don't assume too much about the man and his motives for you would be wrong. Also I went to my own charm school which was goverment funded hence the reason why I never felt the need to attend Melvin's.Also If people get the wrong idea then it is they who should be careful and not me. Why should I be careful while others make the mistakes? :-)
PLEASE NOTE. I have sacked Greenfield Publishing from dealing with any aspect of my book. I have had it printed myself and am now the publisher under the name of PENNY PRESS. Anyone wishing to purchase a copy can do so by e-mailing me direct for the moment.
I was shocked by the outrageous news today and would like to offer my condolences to all US subjects including Jeff Bloomfield who works in the area.God Bless America. |
Author: Michael Hopper
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 11:01 pm | | Robert Smith
While I find the scientifically loose term "freely soluble" from Baxendale very unsatisfactory; I cannot comment on how Eastaugh or Kuranz' results differ from those reported by Baxendale as I have not read any detailed report of their studies.
To me "freely soluble" lies somewhere between "somewhat" soluble and "very" soluble. I would like to see some specifics quoted such as how many milligrams of the ink dissolved after 30 seconds exposure to 5 millilitres of the solvent. Unfortunately the folks in forensics do not always quantify their data that well and thus leave the interpretation up to the reader. In most cases that is a lawyer and they like that ill defined state better.
If you have any pointer to the detailed reports by either Eastaugh or Kuranz I would appreciate hearing about it.
Mike
PS Time to get down to the Blood Transfusion centre and donate some of my own iron containing fluid towards the victims of the NYC outrage. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 12 September 2001 - 10:14 am | | Hi, Robert:
Thank you for your corrections to my post about the bronzing question and that it was not the Curator of Manuscripts at the British Museum in 1992 who remarked on the extent of or lack of bronzing in the ink in the Diary. Rather, you say, "In 1995, Dr Alec Voller on taking the diary to the window comments: 'In one or two places there is some very slight bronzing – tilted to the light it can just be seen.'"
I would say then, and as I think you indicate, Dr Voller's present-day view on the present state of bronzing of the ink might be useful.
I shall look forward to seeing the Diary for the first time in person at Bournemouth albeit that as you say the Diary "will remain under glass in a security case." As a consequence, I take it then that it may not be possible to view more than the two pages that are being propped open in the case. Is that so? Thanks for this additional clarification.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 12 September 2001 - 12:38 pm | | Hi Ivor,
I wasn't putting words in your mouth in relation to Melvin. The following words are all yours (and show how underfunded the government left your charm school):
'Caroline,Who is going to pay me or Melvin Harris to investigate that dodgy bitch Anne Grahan?'
Your words make it pretty clear that you are under the impression that Melvin, just like you, hasn't investigated Anne, one of his prime suspects - the reason being that he, just like you, has been unable to find anyone who will cough up his train fare.
('For a hap'orth o' tar, the ship was lost' springs dismally to mind.)
And you have the cheek to call Anne dodgy!
Hi Michael,
Bravo for donating some of the red stuff. If I could send mine over there I would. I'll be giving my usual armful next month in Croydon and will still be thinking of you all then.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 12 September 2001 - 03:42 pm | | | Caroline, There you go again. What evidence have you that Melvin Harris was unable to find anyone to cough up his train Fare ? The fact of the matter is that he never looked for funding. And that is rubbish to say the same in relation to myself. It is quite clear from your comments in the past that you are anti- Melvin Harris. It does not become you to make it so obvious. Also you are wrong again to assume that the charm school I attended was under-funded. It cost the goverment more to send me to the charm school I attended than it would have cost to send me to a British public school.Also I would like you to enlighten me as to your views about JTR.Are you up to it.After all I came on this site to debate JTR. By the way JTR was the chap who killed a number of prostitutes in Whitechapel in 1888:-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 12 September 2001 - 07:40 pm | | Caroline,Perhaps you could answer the following questions for me because I am something of a novice on the subject and I wish for you to enlighten me.In your opinion who was JTR ? What was the motive for the murders ? Was he a local man ? Why did the murders stop ? How many victims were in the Whitechapel series?
How old was he ? And last but not least what sort of IQ did he posesse ? Many thanks |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 13 September 2001 - 10:16 am | | Hi Ivor,
You originally appeared to agree with me that interviewing the main forgery suspects ought to be a part of the investigative process. I pointed out that Melvin had failed to do so with Anne. Your reaction was to ask me who was going to pay Melvin to investigate her, as if the expense was all that had been holding him back for so long. I never believed for one second that Melvin would have met and questioned Anne years ago if only someone else had financed the encounter. Now you have contradicted yourself and confirmed my own belief that Melvin ‘never looked for funding’. I’m glad we got that sorted. But the original puzzle remains – why do you suppose Melvin hasn’t interviewed Anne himself, given his accusation that she knowingly handled a modern forgery?
I’m sorry, Ivor, but I fail to see the relevance to this discussion of any views I might have about JtR. No one can really be sure who killed those women unless or until some pretty damning new evidence comes to light. A serial killer’s motive is guesswork with or without his identity. Often there is no recognisable motive – Jack may have done it just because he could. He may have been a local man, or he could have been a regular visitor to the area. The murders could have stopped for any number of reasons – I’d only be guessing like everyone else. The same applies to your other questions.
What we are discussing here, on the diary board, are your suspicions about Anne Graham, and her involvement in forging a JtR confession. To be of any value, your suspicions have to be based on a bit more than personal opinion derived from the same material available to everyone else. Have you done any original research or made any new enquiries of your own, for instance, to determine the role Anne or others actually played? You could at least answer yes or no, even if you are not going to share your results. But if the answer is no, and you can’t offer any fresh insights from your own analysis of the published information, I wish you’d say so, instead of just repeating that Anne is guilty because she looks it from where you are standing.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Smith
Thursday, 13 September 2001 - 11:53 am | | Mike,
You hit it in one, when you wrote: “the folks in forensics do not always quantify their data that well and thus leave the interpretation up to the reader.” Baxendale reveals his method up to a point, but with no quantification or specifics, such as you instance. Eastaugh is even less informative about his method, and again offers no specifics. And in Rendell’s broad brush report, there is not even a reference to Kuranz’s solubility test, just a general endorsement of Eastaugh’s work on this diary.
Not very satisfactory.
Chris,
My current feeling is that I want to maintain effective protection for the diary at Bournemouth, as it has already suffered some physical deterioration since 1992. We can talk about it at the conference.
Robert Smith |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 13 September 2001 - 04:54 pm | | | ***Post Deleted Due to Objectionable Content*** |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 13 September 2001 - 05:25 pm | | Just one quote:
"Cant you do something better with your time and go to bingo or whatever it is bored housewives do these days.Your forte is not crime, criminals, the ripper, or the diary that is for sure.Knowing how women want the last word I have bad news for you...."
What a sad, sad post.
And after all that, it said nothing, really.
Sigh.
--John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 13 September 2001 - 08:04 pm | | | You are welcome to your opinion John but remember that is all it is. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 14 September 2001 - 05:27 am | | Hi John,
Indeed. I have simply been asking Ivor what sort of information he has obtained to support his publicly made remarks about Anne. Ivor wrote:
'If I state that Anne Graham is a liar and involved in a conspiracy to defraud then such a statement is based on more than mere suspicion.'
And:
'When I refer to someone as dodgy I have the proof to make such a remark.'
Trouble is, unless he plans to expand on why such publicly made statements are not mere suspicion, it is Ivor who is banging his head on a brick wall. (I was merely asking Ivor if his own private information meant that Peter Birchwood was wasting his time making any further diary enquiries, but the point of the question must have escaped him.)
I'm afraid Ivor just keeps demonstrating precisely why it would be rather silly of me to take his word for anything. I'd have more chance of winning at bingo - and I don't even play!
Have a happy and peaceful weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
