|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 07 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Diary of Jack the Ripper:
ATTENTION: ALL PRO-DIARISTS:
Archive through 07 January 2003
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 06:01 pm |        | | Forgive me if this idea is an old one...I asked two of the most experienced( probably the best looking too)posters if they had seen it done and they couldn't remember..........Having read the CASEBOOK's ranking of favored suspects and seeing the high number of Maybrickians,it occured to me that this segment of Ripperheads has a golden opportunity to advance their cause that no other has. Anne Graham ,possibly a living link to the case, should be urged by her supporters to submit to a polygraph test to verify her claims. I know if I lived in England and I was a supporter of the Diary,I would have already had her British buttcheeks strapped in that chair,with an arm full of electrodes,and a nice chunk of change to hand her for her troubles and insult. This doesn't seem too unreasonable,does it? Why didn't any Maybrickians do this before( I apologize if this idea has been stated before,but like I said,I asked two of the major posters and they were unsure if it had been previously mentioned.)??? Lets imagine that ANY OTHER of the researchers,from Begg to George..to Edwards to Fido and Mr. Evans......had they been the lucky(?) scholar to recieve Barrett's book,and they were asked to submit to a test,I am sure that they would consider it. Or,was it just a "coincidence" that none of these fellows were approached,most being the biggest guns in Ripper scholarship..,Nothing against Mrs.Harrison,but its kind of like taking your car to a car wash when you needed a transmission rebuilt...The aforementioned people all being the better choice......Therefore,is this a practical comment or am I just wasting everyones time?....Sir How |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 12:24 am | | Hi Howard:
That Anne Graham should take a polygraph has been suggested by Ivor Edwards.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 06:24 am | | Hi All,
Add Albert Johnson's name to that list, then we would have 2.
A. |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 08:49 am | | | Thanks to both of you for informing me.........I should have known that someone would have asked this. Funny that no Maybrickians did though....... |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 08:54 am | | So have they been asked to take one? I did a keyword search for polygraph and read the debate which wasn't much of one. How much would it cost, are the results reliable, blah blah. But no one ever actually posed the question to Anne Graham or anyone. So how about it? We know someone here has a line to Anne Graham, would she be willing to take a polygraph test? Of course, by now she may have convinced herself she is telling the truth but...
it would be interesting to see.
Ally |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 12:03 pm | | 'Of course, by now she may have convinced herself she is telling the truth but...'
Admirably frank, if depressingly predictable.
There might be some point in asking Anne to take such a test if there was a cat in hell's chance that minds already 100% made up in either direction could be swayed by the result.
But judging by Ally's comment, she, for one, has already passed judgement. If Anne were to fail, it would confirm Ally's worst suspicions. If she were to pass, it would simply mean she had managed to convince herself that she was telling the truth and this would, er, confirm Ally's worst suspicions.
A clearer case of damned if she does and damned if she doesn't I have yet to see. And the only remotely interesting thing about it is that Ally has just provided Anne with a 100% perfect excuse, if she ever feels she needs one (or even cares whether the likes of us believe her or not), for refusing to submit to such a test.
Love,
Caz, who believes almost nothing 100%, especially when it comes to the diary |
Author: Ally
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 12:51 pm | | Well if that isn't the coward's way out, I don't know what is. Sniffling..well they won't believe me even if I do pass so I am not going to take it so there! And I sincerely doubt that if she took it and failed miserably, the diary supporters wouldn't be saying the test isn't comclusive or accurate. Right.
You have alwayw stated that you believe Anne when she says she is innocent, would a test change your mind?
Ally |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 09:24 pm | | | Ally and Caroline: I understand your positions on this post. I should have directed it to Maybrickians,who have it in their ego-interest to see that James is the dude who will be blamed for something. Needless to say,but I will anyway,they haven't got the crust to get that woman to submit. I think that the majority of Maybrickians are satisfied with the security of being flat-earthers. Enough said... |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 09:46 am | | Hi Ally,
I don’t know how Anne would react if asked to take a test. As I said, she may not give a damn whether we believe her or not. But if she is ever asked, and if she refuses, it may just be because strangers have already judged her, and are even now formulating an argument for her story being a lie, whether she passes or fails. So what are her options? If she takes the test and fails, her story is proved false – she damns herself. If she takes the test and passes, people will say she has convinced herself that her story is true when it isn’t – so she’s damned anyway. If she refuses to take the test – she’s damned as a coward and a liar. It’s not a situation designed to encourage anyone to co-operate, guilty or otherwise.
I wrote:
‘There might be some point in asking Anne to take such a test if there was a cat in hell's chance that minds already 100% made up in either direction could be swayed by the result.’
So I am agreeing with you that anyone as convinced by Anne’s story as you are unconvinced would no doubt come up with their own reasons why the test had to be flawed if it gave a result that wasn’t to their liking. But what is this? A search for the truth regarding the diary’s origins, or some kind of competition to show that one ‘side’ is better or worse than the other, when it comes to their respective entrenched beliefs?
’You have always stated that you believe Anne when she says she is innocent, would a test change your mind?’
I was very tempted to ignore this because it shows how utterly futile it is for me to keep stating and restating my position. I have said over and over and over again until everyone else must be heartily sick of me saying it that when it comes to Anne's story I simply don’t know what to believe, and don’t have enough information to reach a satisfactory conclusion over where the truth lies. I believe, like Melvin, that Anne is innocent of forging the diary herself, but beyond that I can’t say. A test can't change a mind that hasn't been made up yet.
Love,
Caz, who believes almost nothing 100%, especially when it comes to the diary |
Author: ALAN SMITH
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 09:48 am | | Dear cowboys and indians
As a keen observer of these boards and only an occasional contributor it is apparent that the two tribes mentality which is evolving is certainly detracting from the objectivity of the discussions.(Maybrickians for Gods sake). I am a confirmed diary agnostic and would suggest that the regular contributors step back for a moment and take a breath. There are respected authorities on the subject on both sides of the chasm, and surely getting heads together would achieve more than the " To Hell with the truth, just make sure our side scores the points" attitude.Could it be that the mystery provides an earner for too many people for them to want it solved? The anti diary league seem to be nobel prize winners in sarcasm although why they continue on a daily basis discussing something which they clearly hold in contempt is a bit of a mystery. (I fear he doth protest to much?)
Regards
Alan |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 10:02 am | | Hi Howard,
Who are these ‘Maybrickians’? What do you mean when you say they ‘haven't got the crust to get that woman to submit’? And how do you suppose Anne Graham could be forced to submit to a lie detector test?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 10:15 am | | Hi Alan,
Our posts crossed, and we seem remarkably in tune! 
The only thing I would disagree with you about is the 'two tribes' mentality. From where I'm sitting there is one tribe of anti-diarists, ie modern hoax theorists, and the eternal agnostic - me! Care to join me in trying to attract a little more objectivity?
Love,
Caz |
Author: ALAN SMITH
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 12:06 pm | | Caz,
Consider me recruited.
My point about the two tribes loses some of its clout as one is certainly more voiciferous than the other.
Love
Alan |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 01:23 pm | | Hi Alan,
Glad to have you on board!
Now then, me lad, here are a couple of basic tips to help you enjoy being a new recruit.
Firstly, when I say I'm an eternal agnostic, I mean it in the sense that the believers, for the purpose of diary debating, are all those who believe that the diary and watch are modern fakes, ie the 'anti-diary' tribe. Hence I am an agnostic because I don't know whether to believe this theory or not. Many have gone beyond the theory stage and will claim these artefacts have been proved modern, yet some of them still roam these boards debating it for some strange masochistic reason.
Secondly, believe you me, if you so much as question one of these people's absolute certainty that Anne's story is nothing but a pack of devious lies, they are quite likely to immediately and forever afterwards believe that you are a pro-diary, Anne-supporting, dyed-in-the-wool 'Maybrickian'!
Nothing you can say will divert them from this mistaken belief, which only makes me wonder what other mistaken beliefs they might be clinging to.
You have been warned.
Hope you decide to hang around - I find it all a delicious study of human nature.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 04:35 pm | | | Dear Caz.........I used a figure of speech regarding the "crust' comment.meaning that the people who are( and by Casebook ranking of suspects,there are more than a few) don't want to take another step towards crowning James the Ripper...Who are the Maybrickians? A. Obviously the people who are inclined to believe in the Diary as the solution. B. Those who are satisifed that enough has been done and may even be a little timid at suggesting that Mrs.Graham consider taking a polygraph to see,not just if she,but someone else perhaps,had something to do with a little bit of forgery or chicanery that she may know about. Caz, its annoying that knowing that if I was Mrs.Graham and I was in a position to strengthen my side,I would submit to a test. To the Shakespearean quote-dropper, a lotta people shelled out money for the book back in '93. A lotta people,like yours vociferously,were inclined to believe. After reading more about the case,I for one,speaking for me only,was mad. Mad at myself for my poor judgment in accepting this conclusion. I am not trying to infer Mrs.Graham was the diarist. No,Caz,there is no way,civily,to "force" her to take a test. I think I said,"urge". One more thing....the comment about,"To hell with the truth,lets just make sure our side scores more points."...doesn't apply to anyone I know around here. I am not a researcher. I'm a guy who asks questions,because thats all I can bring to the party. Sorry if sometimes they rub some folks the wrong way. They ain't intended to. |
Author: Eric Cannon
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 11:13 pm | | Hello All:
I am a newbie to the boards
(Insert your hazing posts here)
Now, a newbie question: Does anyone know of a place on the 'net where one can see the text of the diary? Complete or partial snippets? Or do I have to buy some Maybrickian's book?
Cheers,
Eric |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 02:00 am | | Dear Eric:
Try clicking here
Warm regards,
Divia
PS: Welcome to the message boards! We will exempt you from the de-bagging ceremony. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 07:32 am | | No we wont !
...oh you mean Eric, sorry Divia, I thought...you dont want to know what I thought.
Monty
|
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 11:29 am | | Dearest Monty:
Oh, but I *do* want to know what you meant... you'll just have to email it to me, since it is probably unfit for public consumption.
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 02:21 pm | | Hi Howard,
Nothing wrong with asking questions, or indeed making suggestions, like the one about urging Anne to take a lie detector test. If questions and suggestions are fairly and carefully thought through, and if they invite answers or results that may help us arrive at the truth, so much the better.
You say you would submit to such a test if you were in a position where one would strengthen your case. And I do appreciate the merits of the “What has she to fear if she’s innocent?” argument. But wouldn’t it rather depend on your personal priorities, ie how important you, Howard, felt the case in question to be, how desperate you were to be believed, and how not being believed was affecting your life? You don’t know Anne, or how high the diary comes in her list of priorities, or how much she currently cares if people don’t believe her story. Only she knows that. And in any case, Ally has helpfully provided Anne with an example of the kind of objection that would be raised in certain quarters if she were to pass the test. Unless anything can be gained from the exercise, either from Anne’s point of view or in terms of learning more about the diary’s origins, why would anyone who voted for Maybrick on the Casebook (I don’t know who they are, let alone whether their interest is lasting and deep or fleeting and superficial) ‘urge’ her to do it? And why would she put herself through an ordeal akin to that of a suspected witch, merely to satisfy the curious and/or vengeful?
I don’t know if you are familiar with the murder of Rachel Nickell, on Wimbledon Common (one of my favourite places) in July 1992 (just three months after Mike Barrett took the Maybrick diary to London). They failed to convict the only real suspect they ever had, but many still believe he did it. In law he doesn’t have to prove he is innocent, of course. But because he couldn’t prove it, and wasn’t too thrilled with the effects on his life of people still calling him a murderer, he took a lie detector test – and passed. Some people no doubt changed their minds about his guilt as a result, but not all. Others shrugged and put it down to a cunning killer who had ways of fooling the machine. So the case remains officially unsolved with the killer still at large – whoever he is.
In short, if Anne knows anything about the diary being forged, or who forged it and when, wild horses are unlikely to drag her to take this test. And what else do we really want or need to know, besides who wrote this document and when? So when anyone says that Anne should submit to a test with no guarantee that they will accept the outcome (I’m not suggesting you have done this), I still think this is less a case of seeking the truth and more a case of seeking what “she owes us”, which, while understandable, is ultimately pointless if she can’t or won’t deliver.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 07:18 pm | | | Point made,Caz........I read you. Howard |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 05:53 am | | You're a star, Howard.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 03:11 pm | | | .and your Old Man's a lucky dude !!!!! HB |
Author: KeithAilwood
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 07:16 pm | | To Whom It May Concern.
Anne Graham has been asked repeatedly to undertake a test the last attempt was by my office in late 2002..we await her descision ...We "Maybrickians"(lol such a curious bunch as we are!!) have tried to get this past her Lawyers several times, who in turn like all good bloodsuckers wanted a substantial amount even for us to converse with This Lady ...but as I say We have asked ..and are awaiting her descision ...We have also requested independant witnesses of her choice to attend as it would then verify the validity of her Testimonial.
Yours in Wonder
James |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 07:23 pm | | Dear James:
The Maybrickians are the Ones that will Not be blamed for Nothing....
Yours in Amusement,
Divia |
Author: Philip Rayner
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 09:57 am | | The telling point for me is the missing pages. Maybrick would have been able to afford a Diary rather than using an old photo album. The only reason I can think of is that the author (And I don't mean the Ripper or Maybrick.) couldn't afford or find a dedicated diary and used the only victorian book they could find or afford. I seem to remember that the Diary came along when the family were not very well off which supports this. We cannot know who wrote the diary but if it was written in 1888 I'll eat my hat.
As for polygraph tests, the only people who refuse to take one are those that are lying on a given subject. The refusal to take one is more telling than passing or failing one. Maybe, like God, the hoaxers think we should not question and believe what they say implicitly. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 10:21 am | | Dear Phil:
Kind of like Cornwell? Oops, was that my outside voice?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 12:01 pm | | Hi Philip,
'I seem to remember that the Diary came along when the family were not very well off which supports this.'
Sorry if I'm being dense - which 'family'? If you mean the Barretts, don't you think if they weren't very well off they would have wanted to make as much money from the diary as possible? In which case you have to explain why Mike confessed to forging it, damaging his diary income, and you also have to show that Anne actively tried to earn money from the diary from the outset.
As for polygraph tests - if you knew you would pass such a test, but also knew that your accusers would immediately say you had managed to convince yourself (and therefore the machine) that you were telling the truth, would you still be happy to take the test and, if so, why? What would be the point of putting yourself through it if people were still going to call you a liar afterwards?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip Rayner
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 01:54 pm | | Well founded points Caz but I still think my points are valid. It's great publicity denying something. Ask any tabloid editor.
Cynical old me I know but if you take the polygraph test and pass it doesn't matter Jack (no pun intended) what other people think. You have proved your point to your own satisfaction. As far as I know you can't fool polygraphs, though I'm no expert.
If JTR/Maybrick didn't write the diary someone must have. Who better than the people who made money from it. If you accept that it came from Tony Deveraux then you have to include him as a suspect diary forger. The whole story of the provenance of the diary is just not beleivable, that someone would just give away what he knows to be a potentially valuable document. |
Author: John Hacker
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 04:43 pm | | Phillip,
"As for polygraph tests, the only people who refuse to take one are those that are lying on a given subject. The refusal to take one is more telling than passing or failing one."
I have to disagree with that statement I'm afraid. Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable and there is always a danger that you will get false results. Personally, I would be hesitent to take one under any circumstances.
Based on the her stories to date I think she probably has very good cause to fear one, but I certainly wouldn't condemn her simply for refusing to do so.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Philip Rayner
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 04:06 am | | Thanks John, I obviously fell for the hype about polygraph tests but as I said I'm no expert so I'll concede that point. No one has questioned my views about the book in which the Diary is written though. That and the provenance of the diary (Or lack of it.) still add up to a forgery for me. Even when I was still reading the Diary (A few years ago.) that kept nagging at me. A Diary of which there has never been any mention suddenly solves the entire case but even the owner knew nothing of it beforehand and recieved it in very suspicious circumstances.
Given the nature of Micheal Maybrick I would have thought he would go through his brother's posessions with a fine tooth comb and would definitely have found it. If Maybrick had hidden it as was suggested in the book, someone must remember finding it but no one has come forward. Even the most dedicated Maybrickian must concede that, while the diary appears to present a beleivable theory, the story of it's finding reeks of a hoax. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 07:35 am | | Hi Philip,
'It's great publicity denying something. Ask any tabloid editor.'
But how is that remotely relevant to the question of where the diary came from, unless it can be proved that those 'denying something' for publicity are lying about it, and unless we can discover what the truth is?
'...if you take the polygraph test and pass it doesn't matter...what other people think. You have proved your point to your own satisfaction.'
What? If Anne is satisfied that the diary has been in her family for at least 50 years, and doesn't care what other people think, proving her point to her own satisfaction by taking a polygraph test makes no sense whatsoever, whether they are reliable or not.
Anyone making money from the diary, who knew of its existence prior to March 1992, was obviously going to be a prime suspect for writing it, or at least being up to their neck in a forgery conspiracy, from the moment anyone suggested it might be a modern fake. I agree that if we accept it came from Tony Devereux we have to include him as a suspect diary forger. What no one knew, if Devereux was involved (no one has said that his handwriting makes him a potential candidate for the penman, nor that of either of the Barretts), was that he was going to die when he did. If he hadn't died, where would Mike have said he got the diary? Whatever he planned to say would have been even less believable, otherwise why change it to another false story that you describe as 'just not believable' - one which also stupidly identifies his (late) partner-in-crime? Why not say he found it in a skip?
I agree that the story of the diary's discovery does smell fishy. But when you start to delve more than a couple of inches below the surface, you come up against a whole host of objections to the 'modern hoax for financial gain' theory - discussed over and over in the Diary archives here on the Casebook, if you have the stomach to look.
Main question, if this is a modern creation, is who actually wrote it and why? There isn't a shred of evidence anywhere on the planet that this person, whoever he is/was, ever pocketed a brass farthing for his pains. If that person is now dead, and Mike knows his identity, why hasn't he ever named him (as he named Devereux), thereby proving once and for all that Anne's 'in the family' story can't be true?
Did the penman curse Mike for conning people into believing he obtained the old photo album and forged its contents himself? Or did he simply turn in his grave?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip Rayner
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 11:10 am | | Hi again Caz my dear nemesis.
I must apologise to the Barretts et al for my somewhat malicious posts recently. I had some things on my mind and they were probably a result of this. Just to clarify....
I dont beleive the diary was written by Maybrick or the Ripper. Nor was Maybrick the Ripper. I have no proof of this but I just find the whole physical diary and it's finding very suspicious. I agree that it could have been forged at any time 1888-the publication of the book. Maybe the Barretts and the other players really were innocent dupes but I certainly wonder how Tony Deveraux came by it. Whilst I agree that it may not have been forged recently I am in no doubt it was a forgery. It is the story as a whole that I find difficut to swallow. Apart from that the contents of Diary itself sound quite plausible. If it's provenance could be proved it would be a very convincing theory but I believe it never will be. Even the main players don't know or won't say where it came from. |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 11:29 am | | Phillip,
"That and the provenance of the diary (Or lack of it.) still add up to a forgery for me. Even when I was still reading the Diary (A few years ago.) that kept nagging at me. A Diary of which there has never been any mention suddenly solves the entire case but even the owner knew nothing of it beforehand and recieved it in very suspicious circumstances."
I agree completely. There is little doubt that the document is a forgery. (Based on the handwriting, chloracetamaide in the ink, the factual errors in the book, it's complete lack of provenance, etc...)
As to who wrote it, no one seems to be sure yet. But it is worth noting (If you assume a forgery for profit) that the "money trail" seems to stop with the folks who provided the somewhat dubious... provenances.
As far as when it was written, the ink contained a chemical that wasn't used in ink until the 1960s. Chloracetamaide was in existance in 1888 so it is remotely possible that the ink could have been contaminated, or someone was making some highly expensive experimental ink, however there isn't any evidence to support that possibility at the moment.
Given the contents of the diary itself and the chloracetamaide, it seems likely to me that the diary was a fairly recent production.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 05:01 pm | | Greetings all:
Oh, no... not another chloracetamide conversation! Just don't tell Peter, okay?
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 08:41 am | | Hi John,
If anyone still assumes 'a forgery for profit', and thinks it 'worth noting' that the "money trail" seems to stop with Anne and Mike, it really would be refreshing to hear that they have at least a tiny bit of evidence for either of these people having penned the diary. What on earth is the point of wishful thinking here, if it simply isn't true?
And if neither Barrett penned it, what have they done with the rascal responsible? Have they been keeping him tied up and gagged somewhere since 1992, while enjoying all the fruits of his labours?
'As far as when it was written, the ink contained a chemical that wasn't used in ink until the 1960s.'
I need some help here, John. Melvin Harris has challenged anyone to come up with an old ink that contained chloroacetamide. I now challenge you to come up with a modern ink that contains this chemical. If Diamine is the only one you can name, where could the chloroacetamide AFI found have come from?
A year after AFI found it, Alec Voller (Diamine's research chemist at the time, who had originally suggested the test which AFI carried out) stated categorically on examining the diary visually that the ink wasn't Diamine, despite AFI's earlier findings. Why would he do that if there was any doubt at all in his mind? Why, indeed, was he examining the diary visually at all, and offering his opinion that the document was at least 90 years old, if he had no reason to doubt that AFI's forensic results showed the presence of chloroacetamide in the diary ink, and that this was enough to prove it was of modern manufacture, ie his own, pre-1992 Diamine? He didn't even want to be paid!
Do you still believe the forger went to the trouble of disguising his Diamine by mixing it with other ingredients, in order to fool Voller a year after failing to fool AFI, when he could have fooled both by sticking to plain iron-gall that can't be dated?
And do you know anything about Nick Warren's visual testing of pre-1992 Diamine, to which Melvin refers but gives no indication of the outcome? Can you think of any reason why, to my knowledge, this testing has never been used to contradict Voller's findings?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:18 am | | Hiya Divia,
Yeah, it appears we're back to cloracetamaide again. Sigh. Me and my big mouth :-)
Hiya Caz,
"If anyone still assumes 'a forgery for profit', and thinks it 'worth noting' that the "money trail" seems to stop with Anne and Mike, it really would be refreshing to hear that they have at least a tiny bit of evidence for either of these people having penned the diary. What on earth is the point of wishful thinking here, if it simply isn't true?"
It's not wishful thinking Caz. It's simply the state of the evidence to date. Is there proof? Nope. So we talk over what we have, and keep looking for more. Just like with the JtR case itself.
You were correct in saying that "Main question, if this is a modern creation, is who actually wrote it and why? There isn't a shred of evidence anywhere on the planet that this person, whoever he is/was, ever pocketed a brass farthing for his pains."
However, people have profited from it. And two of those who have profited from it are the first people we can tie the diary to with any degree of certaintity, and their stories have certainly changed over time. They cannot be proved to be "in" on the diaries creation, but they cannot be eliminated at this point either.
They had motive (money), opportunity, and I certainly don't think that the creation of the diary was beyond their means. That's more than we have for any other potential forgers at the moment. I don't know if they were involved or not, but based on the circumstances of their involment with the diary, I'm not going to refuse to recognize them as valid suspects simply because there is no proof.
"I now challenge you to come up with a modern ink that contains this chemical. If Diamine is the only one you can name, where could the chloroacetamide AFI found have come from?"
I'm sorry Caz, I don't do challenges. Particularly ones that are time consuming. (My time is already consumed by work. I hate project crunch time.) Why don't you try challenging Mel? He likes that sort of thing
"Do you still believe the forger went to the trouble of disguising his Diamine by mixing it with other ingredients, in order to fool Voller a year after failing to fool AFI, when he could have fooled both by sticking to plain iron-gall that can't be dated?"
No, I'm not convinced that diamine doesn't make up at least part of the inks content. Alex Vollers opinion is indeed compelling, but not enough to rule Diamine out entirely in my opinion. Hopefully the new tests that were discussed recently will narrow it down a bit further, but I won't hold my breath. At the very least it's a possibilty that has not been eliminated. I'm not going to speculate on what the forger might have done, or how he could have done it better because a quick look at the diary shows that the forger was fallible.
"And do you know anything about Nick Warren's visual testing of pre-1992 Diamine, to which Melvin refers but gives no indication of the outcome? Can you think of any reason why, to my knowledge, this testing has never been used to contradict Voller's findings?"
I'm sorry, but I don't know what's up with that Caz. I've done some searches on the Casebook and it's been talked/argued about a lot, but there doesn't seem to be any clear, concise summation of what Nick observed. I would be very interested to determine the details though.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:49 am | | Hi John,
'I certainly don't think that the creation of the diary was beyond their means. That's more than we have for any other potential forgers at the moment.'
Hang on - you turned an 'I' into a 'we' there. You don't think it was beyond Anne or Mike's means to have created the diary, so that's more than you have for any other potential forgers at the moment.
'I'm not going to refuse to recognize them as valid suspects simply because there is no proof.'
That's fine, but of course, as with ripper suspects, the onus is on you to provide evidence if you want to argue that they are valid suspects for creating the diary. If it's gut feeling, based on the fact that money has been made and stories have not been straight, it's not enough when the whole picture is taken into account.
As for the 'new tests', with respect I hardly think 'narrowing it down a bit further', with the risk that people will still stick with the expert whose results suit them best, would help at all, and I doubt if this will be an option anyway.
But I'm glad we're in agreement over Nick Warren's experiment. I can't see the point of anyone mentioning it if they can't give a straight answer about what happened.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:15 am | | Caz,
"Hang on - you turned an 'I' into a 'we' there. You don't think it was beyond Anne or Mike's means to have created the diary, so that's more than you have for any other potential forgers at the moment."
Yep. I changed an "I" in a "we". My bad.
But I'm confused however. Are you saying that you think it was beyond their means? In what way?
"That's fine, but of course, as with ripper suspects, the onus is on you to provide evidence if you want to argue that they are valid suspects for creating the diary. If it's gut feeling, based on the fact that money has been made and stories have not been straight, it's not enough when the whole picture is taken into account."
And I have done so, circumstantial though it is. You are free to disagree Caz, but I think that the record clearly indicates that they could have been involved. It's not a question of "gut instinct", it's a simple premise that turns up time and again in criminal investigations.
"Follow the money." It stops with them.
"Motive, means, and opportunity." I think they had all of the above.
There simply isn't anything that exonerates them in any way, shape, or form. And the diary is different than the JtR case in the sense of opportunity. Virtually anyone in London could have had access to JtR's victims, but the only ones we can show with any certainty to have had access to the diary are Mike and Anne.
"As for the 'new tests', with respect I hardly think 'narrowing it down a bit further', with the risk that people will still stick with the expert whose results suit them best, would help at all, and I doubt if this will be an option anyway."
Well Caz, I'm not interested in convincing anyone. The more information that is available, the closer we'll get to the truth. Of course some people will stick with their position irregardless of the evidence. But I think most would evaluate the evidence based on it's merits.
"But I'm glad we're in agreement over Nick Warren's experiment. I can't see the point of anyone mentioning it if they can't give a straight answer about what happened."
I don't know if a straight answer had been given or not. I didn't read all of the pages that came up in the search and it appeared that Melvin and Robert were arguing about the details for quite some time so I have to assume that they were made available in some way. Unless Nick has been involved in multiple ink tests, and the earlier arguments related to a differnet experiment. I do agree that without a straight answer that it's not worth arguing about. I feel the same way about the Leeds tests. :-)
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:15 pm | | Hi John:
Bad dog! No biscuit!
Anyway, this is where I came in last year, isn't it? Same argument, same people... I think I'll step away from the Diary boards now. I've made up my mind: I think it's fake.
Warm regards,
Divia |
|
|
|
|
