Author: C. Junkie
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 10:28 pm |        |
I have been reading the old posts and I have read that there was going to be a meeting last year with some evidence produced. What was the result of that meeting?
What happened to the Forty New Pages? |
Author: Monty
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 11:32 am | |
C
Two of the most ingenious questions regarding the diary I have heard for months.....
.....go on Peter....you gonna answer the chap ? .... or shall I?
Monty
 |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 09:52 am | |
What doth it matter the result of that meeting?
I am not party to any info on the "forty new pages", but I do recall that Keith Skinner may have seen them.
I also recall that, at the time the 40 new pages were mentioned, several diary detractors were wetting themselves as this would provide the proof they needed to finally nail the diary.
Why? How could the emergence of 40 pages, whether new or not prove the diary to be a fake/forgery? For those who don't remember my arguments of last year, here goes ...
If Mike Barrett has forged 40 pages that he claims originally came from the Maybrick diary ...big deal. That proves nothing, other than Mike is trying to squeeze the last drop out of an empty bottle. If the pages do eventually turn up and are written in red bic pen ink over a poster of "The Spice Girls", again that proves nothing.
Sure, it may prove that Mike is trying to foist 40 obviously fake diary pages on us, but it in no way detracts from the validity or importance of the diary that Mike took to London in the early 1990's.
Frankly I don't care about the 40 pages, whatever became/becomes of them.
Time and again we have provided enough evidence to prove that the diary is genuine, time and again we have presented evidence that proves conclusively that Mike Barret could not have been involved in forging it - and with Mike out of the equation that leaves only one other possibility - but you choose to ignore the evidence and instead prattle on about suspects who aren't even fit to lace James Maybrick's victorian shoes.
I hope Andy Aliffe won't think I am breaking a confidence when I tell you that Mike Barrett had him pinned down as "the only man Mike could trust" and planned to show the 40 pages to Andy.
Sadly, Mike let Andy down badly and Andy, not having that much of an interest, withdrew his support.
Will that be ok, Monty? |
Author: C. Junkie
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 11:29 am | |
Thank you for your reply to my questions.
Is there anyone who can actually answer them?
CJ |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 12:06 pm | |
Hi CJ,
As far as I know, no new evidence has been produced to prove a thing about the diary's true origins.
They all think they know, but in fact, no one does. Why? Because if anyone did know, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops waving the proof. I'm sure there'd be money in it for them somewhere. And they could always donate it to charity if they thought it would dirty their hands.
Love,
Caz |
Author: C. Junkie
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 09:41 pm | |
Hi Caz,
Were you at the meeting?
CJ |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 07:19 am | |
Hi CJ,
I don't know which meeting you are thinking of, but no - I haven't attended any meetings where evidence has been produced that can prove where the diary came from.
And I can see no reason why anyone would keep quiet about it if they had.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Daniel J Ryan
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 08:55 am | |
Good day ladies and gentlemen,
has anyone information on Patricia Cornwell's assertion, in her book, that her "paper expert" proved the Diary a forgery.
Regards,
Dan Ryan |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 09:35 am | |
Hi Dan,
What else Did Cornwell say about it? When did her paper expert examine the diary? What tests did he do, what were the results and what exactly was the conclusion? Presumably that the paper could not have dated back as far as 1888?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 11:31 am | |
Peter,
Yeah, It'll do.
Apart from the comical "Sure, it may prove that Mike is trying to foist 40 obviously fake diary pages on us, but it in no way detracts from the validity or importance of the diary that Mike took to London in the early 1990's."
Is that a case of once bitten ??
Teasing Monty...well sort of.
 |
Author: Daniel J Ryan
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 05:43 pm | |
Good day Caroline,
if this is a help. On page 181 Cornwell states, "Peter Bower, one of the most respected paper experts in the world, and perhaps best known for his work on papers used by artists as various as Michelangelo, J.M.W. Turner, Constable, and others - as well as for determining that the notorious Jack the Ripper diary was a fraud."
I can't see that she would say this without some sort of justification. I am hoping that someone will have knowledge one way or the other.
regards,
Dan Ryan |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 06:51 am | |
Thanks Dan.
'Peter Bower...perhaps best known...for determining that the notorious Jack the Ripper diary was a fraud.'
If that's one of the things Cornwell says this 'respected' paper expert is 'best' known for, it's odd that no one seems to know any further details.
Also odd when you consider that the diary paper certainly dates back many decades. So how did Bower ascertain from the paper itself that someone has committed fraud (the word 'fraud' clearly implying the offence has to be post diary emergence, which was in 1992, and at the point when the fraudster received his/her first penny)?
I too would like to see the justification for Cornwell's (or Bower's) choice of words here.
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: C. Junkie
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 08:18 am | |
Caz,
I was looking back through all the old posts again to try to find the ones about the meeting. I didn't write it down where it was and I can't find it again so I can only tell you what I remember. The meeting was to be between I think Chris George and Shirly Harris and a couple of other people I don't remember their names. It was going to show some kind of information about the writer of the diary. I could be wrong like I said I don't remember exactly and I cant find it again.
CJ |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 11:36 am | |
Hi CJ,
I think you must mean the meeting that was held in 2001 in Oxford?
If so, Chris George can tell you more than I, since you mention him being at this meeting.
I think, if I remember rightly, this was the one where Peter Birchwood (?) produced a sample of handwriting that was thought by some to be uncannily like the diary writing.
I can only assume that, as nothing appears to have been taken any further, the sample either proved unsuitable in some way for comparison with the diary by an approved document examiner, or there was insufficient reason to believe such testing would be productive.
As far as I'm aware, no one involved in the investigation has ever suggested a credible alternative modern source of the handwriting in the diary.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Daniel J Ryan
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 01:12 pm | |
Good day Caroline,
If you carry out a Google search with the phrase "Peter Bower Paper Analyst" you get a full page response demonstrating the credentials of this man.
I doubt that he would allow Patricia Cornwell to use his name in vain. Some research aimed in his direction by the sleuths on this website might unearth something to chew on.
I look forward to either a debunking or a new emphasis on the diary.
regards,
Dan Ryan |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 01:30 pm | |
Bower's also mentioned on her website.......
28 November 2002 PAPER HISTORY AND ANALYSIS
by Peter Bower
GURNEY IVORY LAID
From discussions with various colleagues:
It is more than likely that the four pieces of GURNEY IVORY LAID paper, that have been identified as coming from the same batch of paper (ie: 2 Sickert letters and 2 Ripper letters) actually come from a much smaller group of sheets than was originally thought.
The practice at many small manufacturing stationers, such as LePard & Smirths, who produced this paper, when they were producing relatively small runs of papers such as personal stationery, was as follows:
The sheets were roughly guillotined to size and then folded and divided into quires of twenty-four sheets.
Each individual quire of paper was then given a final bim in a hand-fed guillotine.
Every guillotining would produce very slightly different bims.
The match between the short edge cuts on the four identified sheets shows they came from the same quire of paper.
The four identified letters came from a group of 24 sheets. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 03:20 am | |
| It may be of interest to know that Peter Bower was the 'Paper History and Analysis' expert who examined the Littlechild letter for authenticity in 1996. He came up from London to see me at Ipswich. I seem to recall Peter telling me that he was in contact with Audrey Giles, the forensic document examination authority, who had taken a look at the 'diary' when it first came to light and he knew about it. I cannot specifically recall if he said he had actually examined it or not but Robert Smith would know. |
Author: Daniel J Ryan
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 04:32 am | |
Thank you Stewart, for giving the first clue for what may prove to be a very interesting chase.
Unless Patricia Cornwell has over-egged the pudding, Mr. Bower will need to be dealt with.
Regards,
Dan Ryan
PS - Cornwell asserts that Peter Bower, paper analyst, exposed diary as a fraud. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 03:52 pm | |
Peter Bower was at the recording in London where several of us met Patricia Cornwell.
She tried desperately to introduce him into the proceedings, but the presenter just wasn't having it.
Having read Patricia's book, I have to say that Peter Bower's research and findings are important in relation to the JTR/Sickert letters but the assertion that he debunked the diary is no more than me saying I'm a better dancer than Michael Jackson. Watch:
"I'm a better dancer than Michael Jackson".
What's missing? Proof!
Here's another one:
"Monty is handsome".
You want proof of that? You'll be waiting a long time ...
'C. Junkie' - sorry that I didn't answer your questions, it's just that you've yet to ask anything of any relevance that might prompt me to leave my bed, wander over to the keyboard and type a few words. Go read the books on the subject of the diary, then come back with your "questions".
And it's Shirley Harrison, by the way - not Shirly Harris.
Peter.
P.S. Monty, we'll have to do it another time, just don't let C.J. know where we're meeting up or else there'll be questions about that too. |
Author: Monty
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 11:40 am | |
Peter,
Who are you ??
I do not know you so please stop asking me to meet up with you...
..and with my assets you dont need to be handsome
Monty
|
