|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 29 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 29 January 2002
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 05:20 am |        | ...or more precisely.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Tee Vee
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 05:50 am | | Well Paul, thanks again for your words,
since coming to this forum i have been stuck on pages 300 to 308, its all about the letters of the ripper and maybrick etc and i keep reading stuff that convinces me, then, i wish to discuss them on here but i know people have put these same questions across over the years and there is an anti diarist answer for each and every coincedence, we believers cant win. Yet nothing is proveable I mean the "Wager" comments in the letter and the diary at the same time in history are uncanny yet it has fallen by the wheyside by just thinking that the forger/s are just very good at coincedence, But there are just too many.
Well i`m spending a lot of money on all the books i can find, but haven't seen the one you have put forth to me. but i will continue to search.
I just find it funny when some people out there consider it okay to think it the work of a number of people because there is just not enough on just one person to say THATS HIM, but with the Maybrick situ its all rolled up in a ball and sorted. and if it is a fake and the authour came foward, would they be charged with a crime ? apart from having the crap beaten out of him by all us believers ? HA HA Cos if it is they shoould, they could be artists or are they working on something else to freak another interested party around the world out ? maybe the the journal on the "Kursk" submarine or someness like that Hee Hee.
I just cant finish this book now though, i keep reading it and it isnt going in, which means i cant comment on it as i`ll get taken to the cleaners by anti diarists if i miss out anything (which my head seems to be doing) And as i told you i work in mental health, so i cant even read my book on duty as its not a good example to the residents there.
Maybe i need a break (from work that is lol) oh well guys must be off, late shift tonight. squeak later.
"Yours truly"
Tyler "Tee" |
Author: Ally
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 07:50 am | | Hi Tyler,
I think the problem is that we have no evidence to indicate that Maybrick was "of ill mind". If he was, then why did no one notice or comment on it? If he was taking other drugs besides arsenic, enough to have serious psychological effects, his family would have noticed. So which Maybrick story was the one to strike a chord in you? The one of his actual life or the one that his supposed diary says he was secretly living?
Peace,
Ally |
Author: Tee Vee
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:28 am | | The Latter. Thank you. The thing it sounds like you are trying to argue something out with me ? but i have not argued any point out with anyone on here. you have wrong end of stick my friend. if you read earlier posts you`ll see that i`m considering quitting the whole ripper thing as now i`m not sure, yet i was happy believing what i did until i came here. And dont ask me to prove every detail that convinced me then, cos i dont have the answers it was just an interest more than a fully fledged hobby (which for me is boxing and collecting classic fights on vhs) So i dont claim to have the answers to the puzzle, but its been ten long years that the anti - diarists have still not proved a thing, so where are we square one. and i never said it was written by maybrick at all, i like the theory, but i`m not convinced at all, Florie had a bit on the side and i`m sure he would like to of found that diary just before her trial. I mean... If that diary was used in court in defence of Florie and she claimimg to of killed him because she knew he was the ripper that would be a heros tale, but maybe brierly bottled out of it or florie could not of gave it to him. Like the last chapter proves we can all think of wonderful romantic tales of this. but we just dont know. Do we ???? i`m off to work now, and when i get back i`m sure there will be a few articulate posts after mine letting me know that i know absoulutly nish on the subject. (which i dont and never claimed to)
"Yours Truly"
Tee |
Author: Monty
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:34 am | | Paul,
If Maybrick claimed he didnt do it then by all means tell Peter.
Its definite evidence for the negative.
Monty
 |
Author: Ally
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 09:00 am | | Tyler,
Chill. It was a question, not an accusation. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 09:51 am | | Tyler:
The Maybrick Diary story is a fake scenario. It is written by someone who thinks this is how someone would act if they took the drugs Maybrick supposedly took. But as Ally notes, no one at the time appears to have thought he was the Ripper. . . it's just that someone, somewhere, probably in Liverpool, in recent decades thought, "Hey wouldn't Maybrick make a great candidate for the Ripper?" And so they fitted the Ripper story onto the already fairly well known Maybrick case. But that's exactly what it is, a contrived story with no evidence to back it up other than what is in the Diary. The main thing to remember in the Ripper case is that there is no solid evidence against any suspect as has been discussed on other boards. The only evidence is circumstantial. We simply do not know who the killer was, so the killer can be virtually whomever you want him to be.
The case against some suspects is stronger because they are named in notes written by Scotland Yard men or they are known to have been detained during the case and can be proven to have been in the area at the time of the crimes. None of that is true of Maybrick although the sudden appearance of a very dubious document written in somebody else's handwriting gives the semblance of a valid candidacy for James Maybrick as the Ripper. As John Omlor has very eloquently argued, however, the Diary has not been proven to be genuine and there is no evidence whatsoever to think Maybrick was the Ripper. So the claim that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper is a nonstarter. Sorry!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 10:08 am | | | This whole thing has got James Maybrick upset.Yesterday I heard that he is now proclaiming his innocence by appearing at seances-(ask Chris for the details if you missed it).Porr man still cannot find peace. |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 10:40 am | | Hello all,
Can anyone help me? I'm trying to track down the specifics of the letter sent by AFI to Shirley Harrison where the 6.5 number for chloroacetamide content was brought up.
Is this letter documented anywhere? Or the letter she sent that they responded to? Neither of them appear to be in either of my copies of her book. I have the Hyperion hardcover and the Pocket paperback.
Every single time I've seen the 6.5 number quoted it's taken out of context. We only get something like "chloroacetamide ... was detected and determined at a level of 6.5 parts per million". I've never seen it as a complete sentance.
Can anyone please point me to the a copy of the AFI letter to Shirley and/or the inquiry by Shirley to AFI? Please?
Thanks,
John Hacker |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 10:55 am | | | John--Hi. I don't believe it is in print, but only referred to by Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison.. Maybe Shirley can post it here? Or Keith or Robert if they have a copy? I'd be very interested in seeing it as well. Cheers, RP |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 02:49 pm | | Hi John/RJP
The report was sent to Shirley Harrison by Dr. Diana Simpson of AFI on 7th May 1996 and reported the findings of tests undertaken by Dr. Simpson at Shirley’s request to see if chloroacetamide was in the paper. The report read:
'RESULTS
1. Introduction
Previously, for another client, six ink spots stated to be taken from the manuscript were analysed for presence in the ink of monochloroacetamide - which was detected and determined at a level of 6.5 parts per million.
At that time no paper free from ink was available to us…’
What followed concerns the test on the paper, which was found not to contain chloroacetamide. Dr Simpson then concluded:
‘To summarize from the analyses and results obtained:
(i) The spots of ink received and analysed previously were found to contain: 6.5 parts per million.
(ii) The samples of paper taken from the manuscript by the undersigned were not found to contain chloroacetamide… The results indicated therefore that although the ink analysed previously was shown to contain taonochloroacetantide,
the paper on which it was applied did not.’
If I have correctly understood what I have read on these Boards (and I probably haven't), Dr. Simpson meant that the ink spots were dissolved in acetone and the quantity of chloroacetamice in the acetone was determined to be 6.5 parts per million. But it is easy to see why a lay person would have read the words 'The spots of ink received and analysed previously were found to contain: 6.5 parts per million' and come away with the impression that the spots of ink were found to contain 6.5 parts per million. Unless, of course, that is what Dr. Simpson did mean.
I hope this helps. |
Author: Tee Vee
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 06:08 pm | | so when you send a valentines card to someone and you dont want them to know its you (straight away) do you not change your handwritting to elude them ???? I know i do.
Well i think picking someone who`s wife was on trial for he`s murder is a silly idea, of all the people in the world would i choose someone whom had already been in the limelight already.
DID FLORENCE REALLY HAVE THIS AFFAIR THEN ???
And i take drugs, but that doesnt mean i`m uncontrolable, i may feel low at times, i may feel anxious at times and i may feel like i could really hurt someone, but it doesnt show to my family and friends, why should it ? we have enough intelligence to use a charade. dont you remember creeping drunk past your mum late at night and getting away with it ???? I like the way people are just so positive of the answer when they dont have one. ha ha.
Oh and if the answer was yes to Florie having an affair, then there is already enough evidence that its possible that he could`ve killed those girls. meaning its not just drugs that effect the mind. love is the biggest cause of mental illness and paranoia. i once took LSD when i was at work with my dad once and he never knew the difference. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 06:18 pm | | Tee,
When you write in your own diary do you change your handwriting to elude... who? Especially if you make it clear in your diary, over and over again, that it's you writing it? What would be the point of disguising your handwriting in your own diary then?
Just wondering,
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 07:35 pm | | Paul,
Many thanks for the information on the AFI 7th May 1996 report! It helps to see the whole thing in context instead as an isolated sentence fragment.
I believe that the 6.5 number does refer to the chloroacetamide content of the acetone, but it sure would have been interesting to see some more details. I would be particularly curious to know how much acetone was used. With that we could work out what the minimum chloroacetamide content could have been.
Again, many thanks!
John Hacker |
Author: Tee Vee
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 07:46 pm | | | SO DID FLORIE REALLY HAVE AN AFFAIR OR WAS THAT FABRICATED TOO ? you never answered my question |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 08:26 pm | | ANALYSIS FOR INDUSTRY October 1994
No 409011
Technique: Gas liquid chromatography
"Six small black dots of ink from the Diary were
examined. Together these weighed 0.000583g. 'Probably
in excess of 90% of this comprised the paper of the same
size to which the ink dot was attached.'
Result: Chloroacetamide was present at a level of 6.5
parts per million." is how it turned out in Shirley Harrison's book.
All this re-raises the question I posed long ago, that met with a lot of resistance.
To sum up it, and ask it once again. When Harold Brough took Mike Barrett on the rounds after Mike's spontaneous confession, Mike pointed out the Blue Coat Art Shop, saying that is where the diary's ink was bought.
Brough later contacted the shop and they told him that their manuscript ink was Diamine.
Diamine contains nigrosine, and, according to Diamine's chemist Alec Voller, is the only one of its type to be around for 'many a year.' Baxendale found that the diary's ink contained nigrosine. So far, so good. And Diamine also contains chloroacetamide----which was found in the diary's ink by AFI. Even more damning.
So what is the conclusion? Was Mike's statment merely an incredibly lucky guess? Or does it suggest that he had inside knowledge about the creation of the Maybrick diary? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 10:18 am | | Hi All,
Thanks Paul for quoting from Dr. Simpson's report to Shirley in 1996. As you suggest, a lay person, as I assume Shirley was known to be, is not going to know whether there was any more to it than:
'The spots of ink received and analysed previously were found to contain: 6.5 parts per million.'
And I agree with John Hacker about having more details to play with. If only we could arrive at a definitive, "Yes, the amount of chloroacetamide present in the dried diary ink is consistent with what we'd expect to find if liquid Diamine had been used. And no, this chemical could never have found its way into an old ink either through manufacture or contamination", without the need for further expensive and possibly inconclusive tests.
Hi RJ,
Yes, I agree that, if the diary was written in Diamine ink, Mike either got very lucky when he pointed out the Blue Coat Art Shop purely because it happened to be conveniently on the one-way system, or he knew that this was where the ink was purchased.
Conversely, if Alec Voller's first instincts turn out to be correct, and the diary ink is not Diamine, we would know that Mike had made it all up - again - and you would then be left clinging to his Sphere (rather you than me), which he failed to even mention to Harold Brough.
One small aside. If you are planning to forge a Victorian Diary, what would be your top priority for choosing a suitable ink for the purpose? I don't know about anyone else, but I guess mine would be to avoid like the plague any ink which had as one of its standard ingredients a chemical which either could not possibly, or would be extremely unlikely to, have been used in ink manufacture before, say, 1900.
I know, I know, I can hear things like "Hitler Diaries", and "the forger must have been stoopid", being whispered in my shell-like. But, since you mention incredible luck again, how fortunate was it for Mike and his pals that Diamine's ex-chief chemist did not immediately say "Yep, that's my ink all right, no doubt about it, I'd recognise it anywhere"?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 11:40 am | | The case against some suspects is stronger because they are named in notes written by Scotland Yard men.
Seriously Chris? The case againt Druitt is that he went for a swim in the Thames around about December 1888.
And those are the Scotland Yard men who were either not in their London positions at the time of the murders or disagreed entirely on the identities of the suspect(s). Unless of course, Kosminski, Ostrog, Druitt, Chapman etc ALL got together to commit the murders. Or maybe they just did one each.
This argument over Diamine and the diary ink has been done to death. The diary ink is not Diamine. That much has been proven conclusively. But R.J., if it makes you happy, continue with your fantasy.
And John's post(e) to Tyler was:
When you write in your own diary do you change your handwriting to elude... who? Especially if you make it clear in your diary, over and over again, that it's you writing it? What would be the point of disguising your handwriting in your own diary then?
No John, the handwriting in the diary is Maybrick's natural hand, it was only when he was writing to the police and the news agency that he disguised his hand. Except in the case of the Galashiels letter, when he forgot to disguise it. Because the handwriting in that letter looks similar enough to the diary to have been written by the same person, and, quoting Bill again, is 'one and the same' with Maybrick's will.
You constantly argue that Maybrick must have had seven or eight or more handwriting styles to have been a genuine candidate for the ripper. Then you deride those who use the M.P.D. theory. But really John, there is only Paul H. Feldman who has argued that Maybrick wrote all those letters. He has put forward very good theories and arguments on them all. But even I am not convinced on all of them. All I will concede is that Maybrick wrote some of them. Jack the Ripper wrote some of them.
In order for your argument that Maybrick exhibited eight or more styles to be true John, you would first have to accept PHF's arguments that Jack/James wrote all those letters. And that would be the first time you accepted anything that PHF said. Double standards.
Take the middle line. Maybrick wrote some of the letters. And we have the proof. Just ask Bill.
Cheers
Peter
{ |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 11:54 am | | Peter,
You are now rewriting the facts.
The handwriting in the diary does not even come close in any way to matching the Galasheils letter or Maybrick's will or the samples we have of Maybrick's known "natural hand" -- the Baltic letters. And no one who is in any way qualified has ever said it does. Not Bill. No one. Bill has never said word one about the writing in the diary, Peter. He can't. It clearly doesn't match any of these texts in any way.
All right, everyone, pay close attention.
Everyone look at the letter that written by Maybrick on SS. Baltic stationary. Now look at the diary.
That was simple.
We know the former is in Maybrick's "natural hand."
Therefore, the latter is not.
Peter, not a single expert anywhere in the world has ever said that this diary could possibly be in James Maybrick's handwriting or that the writing in the diary matches any documents known to have been written by the real Maybrick.
Ever wonder why not?
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 12:33 pm | | Hi RJP
You write: 'So what is the conclusion? Was Mike's statment merely an incredibly lucky guess? Or does it suggest that he had inside knowledge about the creation of the Maybrick diary?
Not necessarily either. Mike knew the art shop was there because he visited the chambers every Saturday for the alternating book and record sales held there. Diamine was a Liverpool-based ink manufacturer whose product was presumably fairly extensively stocked in Liverpool. All he had to do was point out a specialist ink supplier and the odds were probably that they would identify Diamine as a close approximation of a Victorian ink. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 12:38 pm | | Hi Peter
Actually, the case against Druitt isn't that he went for a swim in the Thames. It's that he went of a sink in the Thames. If he'd gone for a swim, he'd probably have got out and never attracted any attention at all.
Seriously, though, we're told that his family suspected him. We are not told why they suspected him, so we can't say what the evidence against him was or was not. That's why when people are horribly, horribly wrong when they say 'there is absolutely no evidence against him'. There is no evidence that we know of. That's a hugely different thing to no evidence at all.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 06:25 pm | | So Druitt is a suspect on what points? The possibility that there may be some evidence against him?
You'd better not let John Omlor hear you talking like that, else he may fear that I'll start arguing Maybrick in the same style.
Point taken and thanks.
Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 07:36 pm | | Hi Peter
I'm sure John wouldn't ever think that of you, Peter! |
Author: John Hacker
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:31 pm | | RJ,
I would agree that does tend to suggest that Mike had inside knowledge. However I would have been a lot happier if Mike had said "Diamine" instead of pointing at a store. Also, without knowing the chemical composition of the likely competitors (Commerically available manuscript inks) we can't really rule out other of them being used to create the diary yet.
Caz,
I'm not entirely sure we'll ever be able to definatively answer the question regarding the ink even with testing. You make a good point in regarding the importance of ink selection to the forger. They certainly wouldn't want their ink identified as a modern brand. (They seemed to oops a bit here tho. Chloroacetamide)
But there are other things that they could have done that could muddy the testing waters to prevent "match". The strong possibility exists in my mind that the document was baked at some point to help artificially age the ink which could cause evaporation/degradation of some of the inks components making identification difficult.
Also, it's possible that the forger modified the ink in some way, or mixed different brands together to create a new mix. (Hasn't Mike alleged that he added sugar to the ink to confuse testing?)
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 10:28 pm | | Paul--I don't think it is that easy. What were Mike's options? If I remember correctly, Harold Brough's question to Mike was 'Where did you come up with the old ink?" If Mike was merely lying, what would have been a good answer to that question? Some powdered ink in an antique shop? A recipe out of a book? Devereux came up with some from the newspaper? But Mike did something rather risky, it seems to me. He pointed Brough to a modern art shop. And the ink that they sold seems to match the diary's ink...chloroacetamide, nigrosine...
And, of course, this is the same guy that later came up with the Sphere Guide with the binding defect. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 02:52 am | | Hi RJ
What you say is true, of course, but let's not forget that Mike also identified the auctioneer, who at present does not seem to have been the supplier of the 'diary'. And Mike never said anything about Diamine or iron gall inks, or let slip anything that indicated that he knew anything about what one would look like or behave like. He just pointed out a specialist shop that sold ink. I keep returning to the same point - on balance, Mike's behaviour does not suggest anything approaching sophisticated thinking. His character suggests someone who has easy to touch emotions and who gives knee-jerk reactions. He needed to quickly show an ink supplier, so he showed one.
And if the idea of baking the ink is true, are we seriously thinking of Mike as the lone forger?
As for the Sphere book, we still have no evidence that Mike ever knew of the quote's existance befor he 'discovered' the quote at the end of September 1994.
Cheers
Paul
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 09:24 am | | Hi All,
Hi John O,
I had to smile when I read your suggestion:
'Everyone look at the letter that was written by Maybrick on SS. Baltic stationary. Now look at the diary.'
Would it have made any difference if the good ship had not been stationary at the time, but tossing about in mid-Atlantic? 
Hi John H,
'The strong possibility exists in my mind that the document was baked at some point to help artificially age the ink which could cause evaporation/degradation of some of the inks components making identification difficult.'
Well, if we take Alec Voller's opinion at all seriously (do we?), it appears that he found the fading of the diary ink to be irregular and pronounced that such an effect could not be achieved artificially. He added that "any exposure to U.V. radiation that was harsh enough to simulate a century's worth of natural fading would also have a savage bleaching effect on the paper", and that "There was nothing about the appearance of the Diary, as I recall, to suggest this." I don't know what effect baking would have had on the paper though.
But Voller went on to conclude that, even allowing for the fact that the rate at which fading occurs is variable, "...certainly the ink did not go on the paper within recent years... you are looking at a document which in my opinion is at least 90 years old and may be older... I came with an open mind and if I thought it was a modern ink I would have said so."
We have also been told that Voller praised the quality of AFI's work, which found chloroacetamide when they tested the six ink spots.
It still hasn't been made clear whether this means Voller has done a U-turn and now concedes that the diary ink must be Diamine, or at least modern. A simple yes or no would suffice but this appears beyond anyone.
But it does appear that Voller's original professional opinion of the diary ink can be very easily played down or dismissed altogether, while his endorsement of Dr. Simpson's test is heartily welcomed and paraded as if his is positively the last word on the subject.
I do find that interesting.
But the possibility you put forward that the forger 'modified the ink in some way, or mixed different brands together to create a new mix' is an intriguing one. I wonder how much of a chemist he was then. And you are quite right. Mike did say, in April 1999, that it was "Simple!" to doctor the ink by adding sugar. Would sugar have shown up in any of the tests done on the ink, do you think? Or only if anyone thought to look for it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 09:53 am | | Message for Peter Birchwood
Dear Peter,
I asked you a while ago, on this board, after you posted Melvin Harris' message (Friday, 11 January 2002 - 12:06 pm - Ink: The Missing Factor), if you would kindly pass on a couple of reminders for me.
In case you didn't see my post then (on Monday, 14 January 2002 - 10:22 am) I'll copy the relevant bits again below and maybe you could find out if Melvin would be prepared to comment soon.
I'd also be very grateful if you could give us any more information about the large payments you said were made by Mike Barrett to an unidentified source shortly after receiving his diary royalties.
Thanks very much.
Apart from the Sphere book, we know of only one other piece of evidence that exists which could bind one of the modern players to the creation of the diary – the Kane handwriting samples. Melvin told us that when he had more time he would clarify his position on those samples. Perhaps, Peter, you could remind him? Thanks.
I can understand why Alan Gray might be reluctant to allow free access to certain evidence if he has been left out of pocket by the investigation. Melvin posted back on 10th October 2000:
On January 19th 1995 Mrs Harrison tried to get possession of this book from Mr Gray but he refused to play ball. Why she needed the volume was never made clear. This important piece of evidence is in safe keeping.
But Melvin did say on a more recent occasion that the Sphere book could be inspected. So perhaps Peter would ask him for his comments on the following suggestion made by Robert Smith in his recent post:
I would strongly recommend that the volume is shown to one of the most highly respected production directors in publishing, whose details I can supply. He was for many years production manager at Macmillan and Pan (Sphere’s rival). If Melvin or an appointee, together with an independent witness, could take the Sphere book for examination to the production director’s office near Oxford Circus, we would have a much better idea of whether an excess of glue could have caused the book to fall open at the quote.
It’s coming up to the seventh anniversary of Shirley trying to get access to this book. Isn’t it high time arrangements were made to settle the matter once and for all, for the record? At present it leaves room for people to wonder what the problem is.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 10:33 am | | Hi John
By the way, what is our source for James Maybrick watching the race from a bus? I know Bernard Ryan says this, but Trevor L. Christie says the Maybricks joined others 'in a private box to place their bets and watch the horses run'. This seems far more likely than that this group of people watched the race from the bus they'd hired to take them to the racecourse.
And I also noted in Christie's book, for what it is worth, a footnoted comment that an article in the New York Harald indicated that the police had trailed Florence to her assignation with Brierley. 'If true', wrote Christie, 'the inference would seem to be that her husband had long been suspicious of her association with Brieley and was seeking evidence against them.'
Christie further touches on affairs earlier than Brierley on pg64 (footnote). |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 11:39 am | | Hello all,
Just a few quick thoughts while at work. I'll follow up on the ink issues later tonight.
I simply cannot imagine Mike as the "lone forger". While I think that there is sufficient reason to think that he was most likely involved at some level, I cannot seriously imagine he did the whole job without help.
Some of the issues that trouble me with Mike as the lone forger are:
Mike has a drinking problem and the diary is written in ink. If he were the penman I would expect many more mistakes.
While he seems to have a vague awareness of some of the issues regarding the forgery, he doesn't seem to have any real depth of knowledge which suggests to me that he might have been present for some of it's formation but not be the primary creator of the book. It has also occured to me that most of the areas that Mike claims to have some knowledge about are fairly physical tasks. Purchase of ink and diary, tampering with the ink, removal of the initial pages, etc. The sort of menial tasks Mike might be expected to be able to complete successfully.
Finally, Anne gave the thing a (highly suspect, highly belated) provedance. William Graham backed her up. Neither of them seem likely IMO to cover for Mike.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 02:38 pm | | | If Ivor Edwards is correct in his assessment of the crimes of Jack the Ripper, it certainly is a time for re evaluation.If Ivor is right James Maybrick pales into insignificance.Ivor has much more evidence to connect his suspect than any of the Maybrickians. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 04:51 pm | | Hi Caz,
Good one about the moving ship and all that. Spelling, spelling everywhere, and not a drop to drink...
Hi Paul,
I took a shot at answering your thoughts on the Ryan account of the Grand National over on the other board. In either case (Ryan or Christie) the diary still seems to misplace James -- putting him "less than a few feet" from the Prince when it is important in the Maybrick case that he did not go with Alf and Florie to see His Royal Highness, but stayed behind with Gertrude and then publicly scolded Florie when she returned.
I think the diary is simply wrong about this one. And James would have known where he was.
But there’ll be some wiggling from our favorite creative reader, I’m sure, in another desperate attempt to make the history fit the book.
Meanwhile, all the best,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 05:24 pm | | Hello everyone,
I'd just like to take a moment, stop being critical, and offer up a couple of vague feelings that I've had recently.
I've gone back to work with the beginning of the new semester and have been teaching literature and hanging around the lit. department and talking to colleagues who are all professional scholars. Every now and then I tell them about this case and, as I tell them some of the details, I find myself feeling a couple of things very strongly and when they react, as scholars and writers and researchers, they confirm my initial feelings.
These are not claims. These are not offered as evidence of anything. These are not even arguments. They are casual opinions offered from experience by a number of professionals.
"O costly intercourse of death."
First, there is no way in hell Mike Barrett carried those five words, all by themselves, into a library and found their source there.
I do not believe that any of us, even the best researchers and librarians I know, could be given five obscure words, told nothing about them, and then could walk into a library and discover their origin. Not unless they already recognized the words from somewhere or had a clue as to the time period or a field of likely authors, and probably not even with such a clue.
This does not even begin to deal with the fact that he not only "found" them there, he found them in a book he just happened to have at home as well.
When I tell people that, especially people involved in literary studies and who do research on these subjects and know Crashaw and even know Christopher Ricks's work, they often laugh out loud.
Either this is the greatest single coincidence in the history of crime (Mike having the book with these five words in the middle of a prose essay on another author and Mike being the guy who brought forth the diary and the diary having these same five words from this otherwise obscure poem) or the Sphere Guide was somehow the source of the line in the diary.
Now I know most of us already believe the latter scenario and that the important question that remains is how the line got from the Guide to the diary and whether Mike knew anything about it before he walked into Doreen's office or when he confessed to Brough, etc. And I am still completely uncertain about all of those questions.
But for anyone out there who still thinks this book might be genuine, consider -- the same five words from an obscure translation of a Latin hymn by a 17th century Catholic poet that appear in the diary also appear conveniently excerpted in the middle of a page in a book in the house of the very guy who brought the diary forward.
I mean, Jesus, what are the odds?
(By the way, I never received a single e-mail from anyone who has these five words in their own home or, to be precise, who had them before they became a diary-related issue.)
Now, as I said, I am not offering this as evidence of anything. This is a simple reaction to my thought of the day and it counts as nothing. I would never consider actually publishing it even as speculation or as an argument, the way Paul Feldman apparently enjoys, but I offer it in the midst of this chat just as a thought.
No one, I repeat, no one who hears this story, about this diary having these five words as a line and the same five words as a line being excerpted in a book in the house of the very same guy who brought forth the diary can do anything but laugh.
I don't know what this means -- but from an outsider's perspective it sure looks like this appears to be a pretty telling detail concerning the likelihood of this book being authentic.
And then I tell my lit. prof. friends that the alternative is that James Maybrick, a C of E. 19th Century cotton merchant, businessman was casually quoting one of Richard Crashaw's more obscure translations in his diary, and they laugh even louder.
This proves nothing at all of course. But I wanted to share it with the rest of the class.
Thanks for reading.
Now back to the real arguments,
--John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 06:32 pm | | | Hi David, Perhaps we can make a convert out of Peter Yet. Or do you reckon he is too deep in the Maybrick quicksand to be saved.He is one of the last diary diehards left you know David.Will he see sense? or will he forever live his days out in darkness and discord ? |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 06:55 pm | | | Ivor; Yes! It is time to leave poor old James on the banks of the Tiber bound for Purgatory and Paradise. Time to go to hell with D'Onston as he pursued his Satanic Rites with such determination.I wonder if he felt that he was successful?D'Onston reminds me of a verse I heard on Playhouse 90 years ago--'I had ambition by which the angels fell'-I climbed the heights and ascended into hell'.On this bandwagon Peter would have a vast canvas uupon which to paint. His talents would work here as there are manny battles to be fought. At least I think so. But you see I'm not a Titan. |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 08:38 pm | | Caz,
I'm not sure what to make of Voller's opinion. It seems to have changed over time and I am a bit skeptical he could ID the ink based soley on appearance.
I think he's right regarding the UV (like with a sunlamp) tho, that would tend to bleach the paper. Baking would not necessarily mark the paper in any way. According to Sugden, that was used in the forgery of the Mussolini diaries in 1967, and I recall hearing news reports suggesting that the hitler diaries had been baked to age the ink. Under fairly low heat it would dry the paper out, I don't think it would do too much more than that.
I don't think it would take chemistry to mess with the ink. If you're simply mixing different inks together, or adding stuff, you'd just try it and see if it works.
But I am not at all sure what adding sugar would do. AFI's test certainly wouldn't have been affected by sugar. I am not familar enough with the details of any of the other tests to be sure what they would have found. Was Mike specific about why he added sugar? It would probably affect the look of the ink, but I can't imagine in what way.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 08:49 pm | | John Omlor,
I have a question that I bet you could answer. (Many pardons if it's already been asked and answered and I'll go searching again.)
I'll confess that poetry for the most part puts me to sleep and I'm a bit behind on my obscure Catholic poetry reading in particular. So could you point me at a copy of the full "OCIOD" poem?
And also, what is the particular significance of the quote within the poem? Is it symbolic of anything relevant to the diary? Or do you think the forger just grabbed it "cause he liked that whole sex/death thing" and thought it sounded good?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 09:03 pm | | All,
I've seen a copy of the AFI report to Shirley Harrison, and it contains a few little nuggets of information as to how the tests were done. However I think it pretty much dashes any hopes I had that there was any additional useful information to be had.
Basically in the test they used only enough liquid to wet the paper with a tiny bit left over and then let it sit for two hours. Not shaken, stirred, etc. It sat there.
Because most of the acetone remained in the paper, we can't get a good idea of what volume of acetone was at the 6.5 ppm, so we can't work backwards. If it had been a larger volume (such that the amount that remained in the paper was a small percentage of the total acetone volume instead of the reverse which is what we have), we could have made a pretty good guess and gotten a "minimum" content for the sample. Which would still not have proved anything but would have been interesting. :-)
For the record the amount of acetone used was 35 picoliters... A picoliter is a millionth of a millionth of a liter. Just for comparison, depending on the resolution of the printer, inkjet drop sizes range from 3 or 4 picoliters to more than 25 picoliters. We're talking about a TINY drop here.
The test demonstrates that there is indeed chloroacetamide in the ink, but it doesn't really tell us anything about how much was there. Sigh.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 04:41 am | | Hi John (Omlor) and everyone
It is early, my brain isn't functioning and I need a cup of tea, so please excuse any meandering errors in what follows, but I think we should carefully distinguish between two issues. One is whether or not Mike’s copy of the Sphere book furnished the quote found in the ‘diary’. The second is whether or not Mike found the quote at the library, which appears to be laughably unlikely (literally), but forces us to ask where - and when - Mike did find it. And, of course, whether his prior knowledge is evidence of his complicity in the creation of the forgery.
We seem agreed for the moment that Mike's copy of the Sphere book furnished the diarist with the quote, but does Mike's ownership of the book mean that he knew prior to the end of September 1994 that it contained the quote?
That he did know it contained the quote seems to be based wholly on the sheer improbability that Mike could have found the quote at the library.
I don’t know how Liverpool library works or worked back in 1994, but in my experience there are usually two or more sections to a city library, the main ones being ‘lending’ and ‘reference’. For the most part all the books in the lending library are on open shelves, whereas the reference library has a few standard reference texts available and the other books are held in store rooms and must be fetched by the librarian. We don’t know in which part of the library the Sphere book was held (or in which part Mike claimed to have found it). If the book was anywhere other than on the open shelves, Mike would have had to have been directed to it and asked for it. If this was the case, he wouldn’t have found it. That much we all agree on.
But if the book was on the open shelves? Well, that’s a different matter. How many books on literature would have been on the open shelves? My guess is that there wouldn’t have been very many – especially in the lending library section. How many people pop along to the library to borrow a book about literature? They usually pop along for the latest Tom Clancy or Patricia Cornwell.
Now, the Sphere book was sent to the storerooms, which is where it was when Melvin tried to find it, but when Shirley Harrison inquired about it in 1994 it seems that it was freely available on the shelves. So Mike could have walked right into the library and been directed right to the literature section and there seen the book.
At this point one of three things could have happened: (a) he began to systematically go through each of the books, just as Shirley forecast he would, and found the quote; (b) he recognised the Sphere volumes and took them from the shelf and went through them, finding the quote; or (c) he took the Sphere volumes from the shelf and the binding defect caused the book to fall open at the page containing the quote.
(Option c above raises a number of questions of its own. We don’t know whether the binding defect was a one-off or an error to a run of volumes and we don’t know whether Sphere supplied a set of books from their warehouse or sent off a duff set. If the former, how many other copies had the binding defect? Could a whole run have been effected ?)
There are a lot of unanswered questions in the above. A lot of them. But on the face of it and as laughable as the idea might be, it surely isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that Mike did find the quote at the library. In fact, depending on the number of books available to him on the open shelves, it is perfectly possible that he did find it there.
And, of course, if his own personal copy of the Sphere book was the source of the quote, it really isn’t a huge coincidence that he possessed the same book as the one he’d looked at in the library.
So, if Mike could have found the quote at the library, do we have any reason to suppose that this is not what happened? Well, we do have one piece of evidence and that is the testiomy of Alan Gray, who states that Mike told him about the book at the begining of September 1994. But Alan Gray's testimony is currently suspect because the accounts of what he said and when are somewhat confused. Bearing Alan Gray's testimony in mind though, when did Mike discover the quote?This boils down basically to either Mike (a) knowing about the Sphere book and its significance – whatever he thought that significance was – since before the split with Anne (which Melvin, who is our only source for this, has stated to have been before Mike confessed to Harold Brough); (b) he discovered the quote at sometime between confessing to Harold Brough and ‘discovering it at the library’; or (c) he discovered it at the library and then recalled that he possessed the book.
If (a) we have to ask why he never showed the Sphere book to Harold Brough; Mike’s given reason being patently unacceptable since money was not an issue. If (b) we are faced with wondering why, if he knew the significance of the quote as evidence of his claim to have been the forger and had mentioned this to Alan Gray who he had hired to find him a newspaper that would pay for his confession, Mike would have surrendered this valuable piece of evidence to Shirley and denied any prior knowledge of its existence. It has been suggested that Mike had heard about the film money deals and sought to climb back aboard the pro-diary vessel, but we don’t know that he had heard about the money. And one must also wonder whether hoped for money for the same people who’d just lost him £26,000 would have been any sort of real incentive for ditching his sacred evidence (especially if he’d sat on it since before July 1994). And on top of all that, the only evidence we have that Mike knew anything whatsoever about the book prior to the end of September 1994 is Alan Gray’s statement that Mike told him about it at the beginning of September 1994. But we’ve seen that this statement seems suspect. If Mike didn't tell Alan Gray about the book... then we are left with absolutely no evidence that he knew about the quote.
And on top of all this, we have to judge Mike’s reaction to having found the quote. For this we must depend on the word of Martine Rooney and Shirley Harrison, both of whom either spoke to Mike or received an answerphone message from him. Martine said Mike was almost incoherent, having been celebrating. Why would he have been celebrating if he hadn't found the quote? And we know that he was saying things like ‘they’ll never believe this”, which turned out to be a phrophetic statement. Perhaps unsurprisingly. But right or wrong, Mike does seem to have impressed those around at the time that he really had found the quote at the library. And Shirley did check to see if this was possible, learning that the book was on the open shelves.
(Of course, Mike could have popped along to the library and confirmed that the Sphere book was there, then claimed to have found the quote there so that he would either divert suspicion away from himself or portray himself as the great researcher. He blew both, however, by admitting that he possessed a copy of the very book that provided the quote. Which raises the question of why Mike would ever have admitted to owning the Sphere book unless the magnitude of that coincidence had struck him as strongly as it has struck others?)
Taken in isolation it is easy to see how the idea of Mike finding the quote at the library is hugely difficult to accept, yet curiously it does seem to raise far fewer problems than does any other scenario. More information would help things along no end. As ever. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 06:31 am | | Hi All,
Thanks Paul. You have clearly demonstrated the point I was going to make to John (O), in response to the reaction of his friends and colleagues to the Crashaw incident, given to them in isolation, with little or no background information.
This is such a common problem which we see in dramatic newspaper stories all the time - the outsider's perspective. Which is why it can be so dangerous just to focus on one incredibly strong (on the surface) piece of evidence, and exploit it for all it's worth, making even the most intelligent people so satisfied with the little they've been told that they will see no point in looking at the whole story. And anyone who subesquently comes along with 'ifs' and 'buts' and 'maybes' and tries to get them to consider other factors, will be laughed at too and dismissed with a cheery wave of the hand and another good-hearted chuckle.
How many times have we seen well-written courtroom dramas in which we are all completely won over by the case for the prosecution, only to find everything that was utterly unquestionable a few moments before becomes weak and woolly under a skilled defence. And finally, some reference to an obscure point of law, or timely arrival of a new witness or piece of evidence, turns the whole case on its head, and the 'proof' turns to dust, and there are cheers from the gallery as the judge dismisses the case.
This is what concerns me most:
'No one, I repeat, no one who hears this story, about this diary having these five words as a line and the same five words as a line being excerpted in a book in the house of the very same guy who brought forth the diary can do anything but laugh.'
'And then I tell my lit. prof. friends that the alternative is that James Maybrick, a C of E. 19th Century cotton merchant, businessman was casually quoting one of Richard Crashaw's more obscure translations in his diary, and they laugh even louder.'
You see, they aren't even being told that another alternative is that the diary is a fake written before the Sphere book was even published. (Ok, the decibels of laughter would register somewhere between the two here. )
And this bit of propaganda, fun though it might sound, will most likely form the beginning and end of John's colleagues' interest in the diary.
Sorry, John, but I think it had to be said.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
