| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:22 pm: | 
|
Courtesy of Jennifer Pegg, here is an enlarged version of the part of Figure 3 showing a fluorescent mark in relation to the diary text.
I think it's clear from this - and particularly from the cross-stroke of the "t" in the bottom line - that the writing was done after the fluorescent mark was made.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 534
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
I don't suppose there is a full page view of the fluorescent markings, to see if there is a recognizable pattern to them?
And I don't suppose an Ultraviolet light has been shone on the diary? as that would probably have shown up the markings earlier.
Rob |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 617
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Not helpful, but it popped in my head: Didn't one of the Tom Baker Doctor Who episodes ("City of Death") involve the Doctor going back in time and having Leonardo da Vinci, who was forced into making duplicates of the Mona Lisa for a villain to sell on the black market in the 20th century, paint these forgeries (which they technically weren't because Leonardo made them too) overtop some writing he left in magic marker or some other modern marking device so that people in the future could X-ray or otherwise test the duplicates to know which ones were not the original original? I think he wrote "This is fake" in modern English.
Wouldn't it be awesome if the markings in the diary said that and the writing went right over the top of it? That might be the only way at this point to prove conclusively one way or the other (of course the words "This is real" wouldn't help the supporters' side) whether it was legit or not...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 9:38 pm: |
|
" I don't suppose an Ultraviolet light has been shone on the diary? as that would probably have shown up the markings earlier. "
Rendell (Forging History, pg. 151) says ultraviolet and infrared examinations were held on the Diary in Chicago. There's no mention of "inappropriate" fluorescence which is one of the ways he detected the forgery of the Morman papers.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 535
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 3:46 am: |
|
Thanks again Sir Robert. I am only assuming the markings would show up under Ultraviolet light, so if they showed up under an Ultraviolet light now it may indicate they were made within the last 13 years. It doesn't explain why they appear to go over the writing. We probably wont get a satisfactory answer until the markings are tested.
Rob |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 3:59 am: |
|
Robert
Do you have any particular reason to think the fluorescent markings would show up under ultraviolet illumination?
Platt's observations were made by illuminating with visible light and using a filter to block out reflected light, leaving only the fluorescent response at higher wavelengths.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 536
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
There's no particular reason. I know if you shine an Ultraviolet light on certain types of paper that they would fluoresce, which is why I was wondering if the markings would have shown up earlier. But, going by your description above, It's a completely different procedure. And we don't know if the markings would show up under an Ultraviolet light at all.
Rob |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 821
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 4:40 am: |
|
If anyone can check, it would be interesting to know whether this text (including the word "flesh") is on the first page of text or not.
I'm thinking that if the mark isn't on the first page of text, no one before the diarist is likely to have even opened the diary at that page, so that unless the fluorescent marks were made when the paper was manufactured, they are likely to have been made just before the diary was written.
On the other hand, if it's the first page, there are other possibilities. I am thinking of possibly glue oozing out from under the edge of a photograph, if the book had been used as a photo album. That might explain why the fluorescent mark observed looks like a straight line. Glue would also be a plausible substance - perhaps the most likely - to have been spilled on the inside cover.
Unfortunately, Victorian glue would not be likely to tell us anything useful.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Hi Chris P
This section appears on page 245 of the Diary. The passage runs: "I wonder if next time I can carve my funny letters on the whores flesh? I believe I will give it a try. It amuses me if nothing else.
Chris
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 9:43 am: |
|
Chris
Many thanks for identifying that.
I assume p. 245 refers to Harrison's edition. Whereabouts does that place it in the actual manuscript?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
In Harrison's edition the first extant page is numbered 207 and the last page 269 so this passage is approximately two thirds of the way through the Diary
Chris |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 825
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Chris
Thanks. So, apparently, not glue oozing from beneath a photo on the facing page.
And, unless it was an artefact of the manufacture of the paper, the fluorescent marks seem quite likely to have been made by the diarist.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 538
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
It probably would have been noted if the markings were raised off the page slightly.
So the markings could be water-based, or at least a thin enough liquid, that it would not be noticeable to touch.
If it was part of the paper and depending on how thick the paper is, the same marking may be on the opposite side.
Rob |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
Hi Rob, All,
Just arrived at this thread, so apologies for not realising Chris Scott had already identified the page with the vertical mark. Chris P asked exactly the same question on a related thread and I answered it there yesterday.
Anyway, I'm wondering what significance Chris P and others think the marks Dr Platt observed have for the dating game. Platt himself obviously thought none at all, since his conclusion allowed for the diary to have been written in 1888/9 or at a later date.
Platt would also have appreciated which came first, this particular fluorescent mark or the writing that crosses it. If this had made him even slightly suspicious, he had no reason not to say so. Like a true professional, he didn't go beyond his brief. To the best of his knowledge then, the fluorescent marks and their positioning in the diary can't help us with when the writing was done.
Rob, could you expand on your intriguing remark:
If it was part of the paper and depending on how thick the paper is, the same marking may be on the opposite side.
If the fluorescent mark does go right through the paper from one side to the other (and this is something else that could be looked into, along with RJ's proposed formal search for post-1995 bronzing), what would that tell us if anything? Would it imply that it has been there since this sheet of paper was manufactured? If so, that might explain why the mark was no help to Dr Platt regarding the date of the subsequent writing.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 544
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 4:08 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I was wondering, if the same mark appeared on the opposite side of the same sheet, it may indicate that it was made during the manufacturing process. I am assuming that the paper in the diary is fairly thick (at least 180 gsm or more), and that whatever made the mark wouldn't be able to seep through to the other side.
Until the fluorescent markings are tested, we can try and find out what they look like full page and see if there is any recognisable pattern to them.
I am guessing but they might show up under an ultraviolet lamp (like they use for detecting forged notes) and if Robert Smith can get access to one, we may not need to wait for a lab before we know what they look like.
And no, I am not suggesting that if the whole diary lights up then it must be dodgy  .
All the best
Rob. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 838
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 4:16 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Anyway, I'm wondering what significance Chris P and others think the marks Dr Platt observed have for the dating game.
I'm sorry, I didn't think I really had to spell it out, but here you are:
If the fluorescent marks were made before the diary was written, and if they can be shown to be modern, then the diary text is modern too.
Of course, there are two "ifs" in that statement.
I think it's pretty clear from the image that the florescent marks were made before the diary was written (though admittedly that might not be true if the fluorescent substance had soaked through from the other side of the paper).
On the second "if", we have no information either way, which is presumably why Platt didn't try to draw any conclusions about the date from this.
You try to infer from this that the fluorescent marks have "no significance" for what you call the "dating game". That's clearly ludicrous. If the fluorescent material could be dated and shown to be modern, that would obviously be just as good as dating the ink.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 6:51 am: |
|
Chris,
Sometimes I am amazed at the things you have to explain.
Still, I am grateful for your patience.
Many thanks,
--John |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I don't know if this helps, but paper that will fluoresce, does so because an optical bleach has been added in manufacture. These optical bleaches were not invented until about 1940, therefore if the marks in the paper were made at the time of manufacture, this would give you a possible date.
However to just have on or two small fluorescent marks on a page, suggests that something containing an optical bleach must have been placed on the paper after it was manufactured. These optical bleaches are commonly found in household washing powders, to give rise to such claims as "washes white than white".
Forgive me if I am stating something already known.
Rgds
John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 839
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
John
Thanks for that - it wasn't known by me.
But am I not right in thinking that paper normally fluoresces weakly anyway? At least, the paper of the diary is fluorescing in the image above. I suppose the paper of the diary can't be as late as 1940.
Chris Phillips
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I think you are correct to say that a certain amount of fluorencence can be found in papers not made with an optical bleach, but hardly visible to the naked eye. Looking at the scan above, the contrast seems quite marked, so probably not what could be termed normal.
If you have access to a source of ultra violet light, hold a banknote (British - I can't speak for all) and a piece of ordinary copier paper side by side under the light and you will soon spot the difference.
Rgds
John
PS. If the banknote does fluorese you probably have a forgery! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
On the second "if", we have no information either way...
Thanks, that answered my question nicely - no significance for dating at present, but if new information ever comes along to show it to be modern...
Blimey, I wish I was clever.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 20, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Chris,
Nice try, but as you can see, your explanation was apparently not clear enough.
Perhaps that's because Caroline only read half of the sentence. Here again is the whole thing and the ones that follow it, so that it can be made clear exactly what Chris was saying.
Chris is writing to Caroline:
"On the second "if", we have no information either way, which is presumably why Platt didn't try to draw any conclusions about the date from this.
"You try to infer from this that the fluorescent marks have 'no significance' for what you call the 'dating game'. That's clearly ludicrous. If the fluorescent material could be dated and shown to be modern, that would obviously be just as good as dating the ink."
Keeping the record straight,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 848
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Thanks, that answered my question nicely - no significance for dating at present, but if new information ever comes along to show it to be modern...
If you are more comfortable putting it like that, yes.
My feeling was that Jenni had gone to the trouble of organising some scientific tests, and that although they initially looked rather inconclusive, there was actually this observation that might tell us something very interesting, if pursued actively.
But if you prefer to hug your armchair and console yourself with the thought that it's nothing to worry about unless "new information ever comes along", that's up to you.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Then lets pursue it
Jenni
ps dont mind me i am avoiding work!
"All you need is positivity"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 9:16 pm: |
|
I received the following message, and thought I would pass it on. In the book "Salamander" (Linda Sillitoe & Allen Roberts) which is about Mark Hoffman and the Mormon forgery murders, there is an appendix in the second edition with some interesting test results on the many forgeries. There's also a photo of a forged letter showing intriguing bars of luminescence seen under UV." I would think this would be worth looking into.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 21, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:21 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Yes, I'm happy to wait and see if any of the fluorescent marks beneath the writing can be identified and shown to be modern.
I won't hold my breath though. Sorry to disappoint you. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
I'm glad everyone's happy.
and its the weekend, so,
suns out,
 #when you're smiling, when you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you!#
seriously - i wonder if the marks can be shown to be modern/ Or equally not modern!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
