|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 7:59 am: | 
|
Caroline Morris
Obviously you aren't going to answer the question I've asked so many times:
Have you changed your mind, since you posted that you were in no doubt that the diary was a hoax?
There's no conceivable reason you would be unwilling to answer that if you were here in good faith to discuss the diary.
For my part, I'm not going to prolong attempts at sensible discussion with someone who acts in such a dishonest and unprincipled way. It's pointless to try.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Chris,
I think what's happened is Caroline has once again told us that she "just doesn't know." Big surprise, huh? It always ends up to be her position about everything diary related if you continue any discussion long enough.
And so the conversational pattern is repeated and the dance has come full circle.
All things in Diary World end where they began.
Jeff returns and writes:
"The mantra...'maybe there's just stuff we don't know about yet' is a daft statement."
I agree. And it's certainly nothing to build a theory one. So it's a good thing the modern hoax theory doesn't need it as the only hope it has (like all other theories).
But Jeff also asks: "So, is the reference to the matchbox really evidence of a post-1987 hoax?"
Well, it is unless you want to chant "maybe there's just something we don't know about yet." Of course, that's not offering evidence, that's praying.
Anyway, nothing has changed. That's comforting in a way. And as for the egg...
Well, never mind. It's too obvious.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on May 16, 2005) |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Chris
Please stand back and look at what you are saying.
You, like myself are obviously a lover of history. And history is not the fixed bunch of dates and facts that we learnt at school.
Modern history is a voyage of discovry, of changing facts and truths that constantly change our perceived understanding.
Surely if Caz (sorry caz I realize I have absolutely no right to speak for you, which I hope you realizwe I'm not doing, just being general) or anybody chooses to re-examin and alter there possition, surely that is a good thing.
Why shouldn't sencible discussion by its very nature not involve changing your mind and posistion on a whole range of subjects..this is a discussion board.
And as I have pointed out in a previous post there is nothing wrong with someone pointing out holes in someones theories (or fore someone putting forward theories for that matter)
Caz's arguments seem constant and logical to me. Surely all they have done is point holes in the New Hoax theories. If this is something she's changed after studying the subject surely that is a good thing.
Its the current situation that is important. What is dishonest and unprincabled about altering ones veiws?
I dont understand? You should have heard what we where taught about dinosaurs when I was at school, that would make you laugh. We now have a totally different veiw..but we still know comparatively little.
About the Maybrick Diary we currently dont know. Surely everyone has a right to lissen to the various discussions and make up there own minds without being called unprincabled, it just sounds like an childish personel attack.
History changes, we change, enjoy
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
John what is wrong with saying 'I just dont know?' It was surely good enough for Aristotle who was deamed by the oracle of adelphy to be the wisest man in the kingdom.
The fact is...that the only alternative to the Modern Hoax theory is the...
We dont know because not enough research or tests have been done on the diary Theory.
Two schools of thought please choose.
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
Jeff,
I'm going to let the comparison of Aristotle to Caroline Morris pass without comment -- mostly because I'm coughing up blood just from reading it.
The only alternative to the modern hoax theory is "maybe there's something we just don't know about yet" because all the textual evidence without exception supports the modern hoax theory.
As Aristotle would tell you, when a preponderance of evidence (indeed all of the evidence in the text itself) points to a single conclusion, a perfectly valid inductive conclusion is logically available.
There is no evidence anywhere in this book that suggests it is old.
All the textual evidence strongly indicates a modern date of composition as being the most likely one.
That's how Aristotle often came to conclusions -- by collecting the evidence and seeing the cumulative effect of it. That's how inductive logic works.
As for your "two schools of thought" comment -- there are not two schools of thought. There's only one school of thought -- the diary is a modern hoax -- that has any actual evidence from the book to support it.
And then there are prayers based on stuff we don't know.
And you can refuse to acknowledge the cumulative effect of piece after piece of evidence that points to a modern date of composition if you want, but at some point that stops being simple skepticism and becomes willful blindness or utter desperation.
And, as an unrelated aside not directed towards you, that willful blindness is made much worse if some of the people practicing it stand to make any money at all from this cheap hoax.
But good luck getting the tests done.
I'm leaving the boards now so you need not respond to me, I won't be able to write back.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
John
Please dont choke on the blood before your operation. which I think everybody here wishes you all the best with.
I will try to keep you posted via email if there are any developments.
I think we must agree to differ on the two schools of thought.
Having spent some time discussing this point with Paul Begg over the weekend, who has done as much research on the subject as anyone, and who also insidently beleives it is probably a modern hoax.
I have been advised that not enough factual evidence exists to claim catigorically that the Maybrick diary is a Modern Hoax. And as I am currently trying to sell a series based on six manuscripts that may or may not be...Hoax or History. I beleive that the Maybrick diary is fair game....at least sufficient questions remain to make it a viable story.
In all probabilty it is a hoax, I understand your arguments but beleive that any programme has the duty to balance all sides of an arguement which I intend to do should it go ahead.
The most imortant thing about this story is the bigger question of forgery and historical documents and the wider problem faced by everybody trying to varify documents without reliable provanence.
Anyway I wish you all the best and many thanks for your help. No doubt you will be back soon.
I'm sure we find the subject equaully fascinating.
Jeff
PS If you do have any aditional info on Joseph Barbe and am particularly interested.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1757
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I don't know when the diary was written; neither do you.
But I have always had problems with the modern hoax claims that have been made in this place, and I notice that those making the claims are still failing to prove any of them, while expecting others to disprove them.
If I ever posted the words: 'I have no doubt the diary is a hoax', then I apologise, because that was irresponsible of me - I had no way of knowing for certain why it was created.
If we ever establish when it was written, and how it came to be in Mike Barrett's possession, we would then be in a better position to speculate on why it might have been written, whose writing it could be, and whether it was created as a hoax, in a serious attempt to fool the public, or not.
If you really think it is acting in a dishonest and unprincipled way, to modify a view that was once expressed rather too rashly, then I can't help you. And if you use this as your excuse not to respond to serious questions I have about, for example, your statement that science may help us resolve the question of authenticity, then your readers might just begin to wonder about your own principles.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 17, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
"whether it was created as a hoax, in a serious attempt to fool the public, or not. "
To me, that's a key issue. If the Diary is older than commonly thought, the question has to be asked why it wasn't brought forward at the time of its creation. Was it meant as a private joke of sorts? Or of such poor quality it didn't pass the author's muster?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
Caz, John, Chris,
I'm afraid that I do not fully understand your quaral. In fact while I have studied your arguements it has struck me how similar your positions are on the diary. To much time is wasted on who is telling the Truth, which is ridiculus...the truth, as Obe canobe would say, depends on your point of veiw. What we are trying to work out are the FACTS.
I'm not going to waste any of my time on personal arguements, although within these, on all sides are often perfectly valid points.
I have made my own enquireis reguarding the Diary and as I explained discussed what needs to be done with Paul Begg. A man for whom I have utmost trust and respect as an expert on the Ripper crimes and vast knowledge about the diary.
My conclusion from this was as follow's:
Noone knows for sure who, when or where the diary was writen.
It is probably a modern fake but none of the textual errors have ever catigorically been proven. Insufficient research has been done by modern advocists to justify that they have.
There are a number of problems with Mike Barretts claims to have forged the diary. Indeed there is a good probability that he did not.
As nodody can say with any assurance the diary is either modern or old further research and tests need to be done so the origins of the diary (either modern or old) can be fully explored.
I understand that experts in 'ink' beleive that tests to date the diary should be possible. But this is a general feeling I have gain rather than specific assurance.
I understand that the diary would need to be examined before any such assurances could be given by scientists.
I understand that the owner of the Diary would be willing to make the diary available but also wishes assurances that tests will be done properly and conclusively. ( this is why someone of Paul Beggs stature would need to be involved with such a process as it would require trust on all sides.)
I understand that a reasonable sum of money would need to be raised inorder for good conclussive tests to take place.
I understand that this is my problem and I will do my best to resolve this side of the equation. The question how long is a peice of string comes to mind. As its almost impossilbe to answer, my solution is to tout around a viable TV propossel and see how much money could be raised and whether our scientist beleive it could be done for that amount of money, whatever that might be.
I'm afraid it is a completely hit and miss solution for which I can give no assurances. It is taking longer than I enicially conceived as broadcasters rarely commision one off's but require series.
AT least it should give you all a new target for critisisum.
Individual bickering and the scoring of points is futile. The important thing is surely to discover the FACTS behind the diaries origins and it would be useful to keep the arguements to these facts and not any personal insults.....as ALLY says its done forget it move on...
I beleive that most of the points if have started with 'I understand' are agreed by the majority of you, although I dont wish to get bogged down with the modern Hoax verses old Hoax argument, which I beleive is largely going in circles rather that forward. I am interested in your opinions on testing.
As this is an ink test thread can we get back to possible tests and an idea of whom and how much might be realistic?
Mr Poster- Is it possible to recap the current position on chloromide levels and possible contamination for those of us that are a little slow on chemistry and have lost the train of thought.
Yours Jeff
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
"There are a number of problems with Mike Barrett's claims to have forged the diary. Indeed there is a good probability that he did not. "
This is simply not true, Jeff.
There are no "problems" whatsoever with Barrett having forged the Diary.
Barrett has thrown out so much garbage that otherwise intelligent and perceptive people, finally having become utterly exhausted by his tales, flung up their hands in despair and concluded that he had nothing to do with it.
Ultimately, this was a mistake, imho.
According to your friend Paul Begg, Barrett's skills were evidently limited. But semi-literate people are capable of going to great lengths to get their work accomplished. At a company I used to work for, it was discovered that one of the managers could barely read, write, or do simple math. He had faked his way through for years. Basically the guy was an idiot, but he had a genius for getting around obstacles. Much of this was accomplished through bullying and evasion.
The question that needs to be asked is this. If Barrett was so incapable, why did his wife buy him a word processor and encourage him to write? How did he manage to get those magazine articles published? Why did the editor of Celebrity magazine say he was a 'reliable' contributor?
By hook or crook, Barrett got his stuff published. If Barrett's handwring was so lousy and his spelling worst this would actually explain the diary's handwriting not being his. He needed to find an amanuensis.
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Hi RJ
I have considered my statement, and would like to appologuise unreservedly, (see it dosnt hurt)
The word PROBABILITY is a little exagerated and in this context should have read A GOOD POSSIBILITY THAT HE DID NOT. Again sorry about that I realize we should be careful about words in Maybrick land.
So RJ are you really saying that there are NO PROBLEMS with Barrett having writen the Diary.
I would say the biggest problem, for a start, is the fact that he is currently saying he got the diary from his father in law. And while people are so quick to piont out that the diary isnt in Maybricks hand writing it also isn't in Mike Barretts. Writing that shows both modern traits but also Victorian traits. As for the word processor is this the same word processor that mysteriously disappeared? And those who are so fond of pointing out Barrett had been on a writing course NEVER reveal to what level. CSE, GCSE Alevel Degree 11+? Why could he not give any feesable acount of how the diary was created. The idea that the person who created the diary couldn't prove he did is surely stretching it at any level.
Yes I have spoken at length with Paul Begg about this. Unlike you and I, he was there, he has met and talked at length with Mike Barrett and the picture he paints is very different from the picture painted on this board.
He talks about Mike Barrett with compassion. About a man losing everything, his wife, his family and turning ever to drink. A man who's life was distroyed by the Diary a man totally out of his depth.
If someone who was there has grave doubts about Barrett's ability to create the diary off his own back, then I think we have a duty to pay attension to his words. This is not to say that Paul has ever suggested Mike deffinately didn't write the Diary or was not involved in some way. Just that he has always been unhappy about the account given in Barretts official confession which he later retracked.
Personly I beleive Mike Barrett has been given a very hard time and it is not surprising he has clamped up and refused to talk.
If Mike Barrett or anybody reading this knows Mike Barrett. I am more than willing to put Mike's side of the argument in a fair and imparcial way, if he would be prepared to do that interveiw with a lie detector so that we can substanciate his story. I think that Mike should be given a chance to clear his name and have his say without the accusation of lies.
Finally we would get to the facts. And I for one am prepared to treat Mike with utmost courtesy whether he was or was not involved in the Maybrick Hoax.
In the mean time to state that there are no problems with Mike having created the diary is simply ridiculous. Of course there are problems, what do you think this whole debate is about?
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
The only way the question of authenticity could possibly be resolved by further chemical analysis is if the ink is of modern manufacture, and only then if the technology is up to the job of establishing this.
It doesn't matter how convinced some people are that the diary was written after 1987; if the ink can't be proved modern because, for example, none of its ingredients are inconsistent with a date of 1888, further analysis won't help at all.
I still don't see how looking at the diary will help any scientist decide whether further chemical analysis could date it or not. What would they be looking for exactly?
I would love to be proved overly pessimistic, but no one has yet come up with anything specific to make me optimistic.
And I agree that there are huge problems with the theory that Mike was involved with creating the diary.
The most basic problem is that anyone claiming that Mike knows when the thing was written, knows who did it or why it was created, has to find the evidence that proves it. I don't believe it exists, but then I don't have to prove Mike wasn't involved.
The Sphere book is as good as it gets IMHO, but it's clearly not good enough on its own, with only Mike's one-time word propping it open. The continuing efforts of the modern hoax believers prove that much.
That's why the debate goes on.
If RJ can turn up evidence that everyone from Melvin Harris to Keith Skinner missed in over ten years of painstaking enquiry, I'd take my hat off to him if I wore one.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
What I think scientists are saying is that they can’t really recommend specific tests to produce specific results without seeing the diary.
That’s different from giving a general idea of the kind of tests that are possible.
I'm certainly not recommending tests for the sake of tests, just reexamination by experts to discuss what might or might not be possible. Hopefully that will allow them to make accurate recommendations.
I'm not going to pre empt those conclusions. But a number of contaminants might be looked for. Also some off the tests that have been carried out to date...if I understand Mr Poster..may not have been as accurate as should have been.
I'm looking to put together an independant team to reaccess and propose a way forward.
I'm under know illusion how difficult this might prove, especially as I'm proposing simultanious tests on a number of other documents at the same time (although not necessarily the same tests).
As for the Barrett question I have know more idea than anybody else but I would like to interveiw him and see, given the passage of time, if more sence could be concluded. As I've stated a lie detector could protect him from the same old accusations.
I'd also ask what is the alternative to what i'm proposing? My interest is purely at getting to the facts and hopefully telling an interesting story along the way.
I am also aware that money is not the only answer to the problem, the Casement Black Diaries are a good example of that.
However it is my beleif that more can be done to date the diary but I am ever the optomist. At the end of the day raising the money to make it possible is my current headache, I'm not a scientist but going on the advice of experts I trust.
Jeff
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Jeff--It's pretty obvious you didn't really read my post, or if you had, you didn't really think very deeply about it.
My postion is the same.
Barrett's literary skill is a non-issue. In fact, it's evasive.
Everytime Barrett is discussed, it's like there''s an elephant in the room no one wants to notice.
Only in this case, the elephant lived on Goldie Street.
Caz will know what I mean.
It's a mistake to think that a manipulator can't figure out a ways to get what he wants done.
Now, go back and think about those three questions. Take care, RP |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hi RJ
I'm not clear about your three points or what an elephant in Goldie Street has to do wit anything or why you might think I have anyway of finding out anything directly from Caz?
I'm afraid I havn't seen or read any of the articles writen or published by Mike Barrett so I'm afraid you do have me at a disadvantage.
Are they master works of fiction that hint at his ability to create a character that psychologists will beleive is mentally disturbed?
Do they hint at his ability to understand the need to disguise his hand writing as victorian or avoid putting floride in his ink?
Caz you obviously know more about this than I do or I have been informed...Is RJ correct in asumming that i have underestermated Mike Barretts creative writing ability?
Did he secretly attend a degree course nobody knows about? (I think the level of his education is relivant)
Are there other comparissons of his work I should be taking into account? Did he compose the Vortigern for example?
I have lisened to people accuse Mike Barrett of Munchhausens desease now RJ, you appear to be accusing him of being some sought of mental manipulator, a psycho with hidden depths...do you have any medical evidence for this?
Does anyone have any medical proof for anything reguarding Mike Barrett apart from Paul Beggs observation (He was there) that he was drinking to much and his marrage was slowly breaking up?
If you would like to make clear what three questions I am meant to be answering I will give it a go, but please state them clearly and understand that I have never claimed to be a leading authority on the Maybrick Diary. I'm just a hack trying to understand the in's and out's of a complicated story.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
PS. Does anybody have any information on Baretts priviously published material...where I can get hold of copies...who was the journalist at celebrity who stated Mike was a reliable contributor? How many and for how long Mike was being published.
I have already made some enquiries RJ, if you can help me out with more specific information it would be useful.
Hopefull reply in the next couple of days. Jeff |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Jeff--Why not pick up a copy of Ripper Diary or Paul Feldman's book and acquaint yourself with the key events? It will make your journey a little easier, but be sure to read between the lines as you go. The information on Celebrity Magazine can also be found in the first book mentioned.
I think you still might be missing my point, however.
Analyzing Barrett's writing skill is rather pointless. He wasn't living alone in Goldie Street. He was married to Anne Graham at the time, and as Martin Fido once stated, her work was of a very high standard. By her own admission she helped Barrett with his writing. So why not analyze her work as well? Sorry to be blunt, but if you really think the Maybrick Diary is a 'master work' of fiction, and superior in style to, say, even The Last Victim, then I suggest you and I don't have much common ground to discuss this.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but evoking Paul's name every post is known as 'an appeal to authority.' In itself, it's not an argument. It's not evidence. It's like saying "Einstein believes it, so I believe it." It's a short-cut that, if constantly evoked, produces dogma rather than discourse or investigation. In a general sort of way, I more or less agree with Paul's view of Barrett's ability; I think it's evasive, however, from the mere fact that Barrett was living with someone who had the literary ability to supply what Barrett may or may not have lacked.
You probably don't know this, but a number of years ago Paul used to post here at length, and I had the pleasure of trading posts with him, so I know his position well. He does however, believe the Diary is a modern fake. Unless we accept the possibility of some sort of complex and convoluted Agatha Christie-style solution, this means that Barrett and Graham know where the Diary came from and how it was created. As the editor of a magazine, I can see where he has to cultivate an atmosphere were all sides --even the dissenting voices--are allowed to be heard. He's taken a few knocks on these boards for seemingly "praising the diary with weak damnations," as it were; but as an editor, and as a bloke who has friends with vastly differering opinions, I can see where he would wish to remain rather neutral. So I accept his generosity for what it is, and I also appreciate your compassion for Barrett.
My stance is pretty simple. The handwriting isn't Maybricks. The existance of chloroacetamide in the ink is suspicious. Beyond all probability, I think the textual evidence shows the diary is a modern fake. The behavior of Barrett and Graham has been as suspicious as heck. Ergo, I think the ball is in their court , and the only way through to a solution is in investigating them, not the Diary.
What is sometimes forgotten is that it's not really illegal to perpetrate a hoax. Barrett was astute. He sold the Diary for a mere pound. Ergo, there really wasn't any victim--or at least any one who would file a complaint. The book about the diary itself was marketted as an 'investigation.' Unless someone files a complaint, Barrett and Graham can't be forced to answer questions or have their personal lives probed. This isn't going to happen.
So what Caz said the other day might well be true. No more evidence against Graham and Barrett will ever be found. In my view this is mainly because several years have now passed and no one has either the money, the patience, nor the legal clout to force an investigation. Ultimately this doesn't help the diary's cause, however, because neither one of them have been credible. Fair or unfair, as long as the diary has no provenance, they will be under a cloud of suspicion. As Paul admitted in his latest book, lack of provenance alone is enough to show the diary is a hoax.
Good luck in your investigation. If you're serious about talking with Barrett see what "writer's circle" he belonged to in Liverpool. It might not be too late to find someone who remembers what Barrett was up to in 1988-91.
Cheers, RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on May 19, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
"I'm afraid I havn't seen or read any of the articles writen or published by Mike Barrett so I'm afraid you do have me at a disadvantage. "
Jeff, the problem with published articles is that they might be heavily edited/rewritten. I'd place more reliance on stuff known not to be edited, such as his letter to Ripperana.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Tell me, Sir Robert, before I take off. Are you willing to argue that the Maybrick Diary is superior in style and research to say, Anne Graham's The Last Victim?
"With the key
I did flee."
If not, where is this going to put you?
You might also wish to hunt down a copy of the manuscript found on Barrett's word processor and study it for spelling errors. Then review Anne Graham's statement(s) about how this typescript was allegedly created. Let me know if you find her story credible. Take care. RP |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hey RP !
Graham did have a co-author on The Last Victim, Caroline Emmas.
There aren't many areas relevant to the Case that I claim any degree of expertise, but I was involved in editing a daily paper some 30 years ago, and I know that in many cases an edited article bears little relation to what the original was like, either in tone, angle or craftsmanship.
For the record, the person I trust least in all this is Anne Graham.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
"There are a number of problems with Mike Barrett's claims to have forged the diary. Indeed there is a good probability that he did not. "
This is simply not true, Jeff.
RJ this really is taking the biscuit. Either your claiming that Barrett is an CUNNING and MANIPULATIVE diary hoaxer or you are not?
Which is it to be because you cant have it both ways. I clearly made a statement that there were a nimber of problems with Mike Barrett being the Hoaxer of the Maybrick diary.
Which you claimed was NOT true.
Now your claiming Anne Graham forged the diary?
A totally differerant person, a totally differant name.
Where, please show me, have I ever stated Anne Graham didnt create the Maybrick Diary?
Either my statement was wrong or Anne Graham created the diary?
Please make your mind up....but you cant have it both ways, if your claiming Anne Graham (which I also beleive a better explination) then fine but surely that makes my statement correct does it not.
Incidently if I was making a TV programme about nuclear explossions I would be quoting Albert Eistein yes, thats what journalist do, they research there story get there facts straight and quote people who know more about a subject than they do.
Your version of Mike Barrett contradicts the version of Barrett given to me by Paul Begg.
I think I have a right to ask you both to justify your reasons. Either Barrett is cunning and manipulating or he is a semi literate drunk who's unlikely to have produced the Maybrick hoax, which is it to be?
Jeff
(sorry about the state of this post but I'm due out on a shoot and havnt toime to check hope you get the gist)
|
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hei
With the obsession with "CSI:insert city" type programs, I think maybe it should be easy to get people interested in this sort of thing?
Lars |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 4:24 am: |
|
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 06:34 pm
"while I too think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that those four words in that order suggest that the writer had seen the police list, I also, certainly, cannot claim that because those words also appear in the diary, the diary can simply not possibly have been written in 1888. Because I cannot simply or casually dismiss the possibility that those four words were put on paper by someone who had not seen that list ...
In any case, the appearance of those four words is definitely not a historical howler to the extent that it proves the diary could not, under any circumstances, have been written in 1888 ...."
Does this not sum up the problems with all the textual evidence (which isnt evidence really but possible evidence)?
If this is all there is (the "textual problem" list), after over 10 years, to prove a modern hoax, then it just isnt much. And dont say there is scientific evidence because there isnt. There are some observations. And, crazy as it may sound, those observations when viewed as a whole, seem to point to a document older than a modern hoax would suggest. The handwriting is a different issue but Im not going down that road.
The modern hoax case just hasnt really been proven yet and the fence would seem to be the only logical place to be.
Its a little like the McCrone case with the Shroud of Turin. 3 labs analyse for age, 2 remain suspicously quiet, Walter McCrone (3rd lab) makes some very definite statements ("The "Shroud" is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic.") and that result is now taking some of the hottest flak ever seen from a variety of fronts. The modern hoax proponents are making similarily definite statements on even weaker potential evidence. Other people (in this case the other two labs) have seen all the "evidence" as well but see enough potential weaknesses in it to think its a bit wiser to keep mouths shut and remain on the fence.
And these problems annoy me:
1)why labour over something (the journal) then give it to someone like Barrett (as I doubt he wrote it)?
2)why not just write a page or two of a "confession" ? Its equally hard to prove false and provides less ammunition.
3)it bothers me that the one thing that seems "checkable" (and has been touted as something a modern person would be unlikely to know) is the Grand National race comment and yet the document seems to have arisen among a group of men whose handwriting samples seem to consist of betting slips.
4) but it bothers me that such a group of men are so familiar with arsenic poisoning etc etc.
And there are other things. But to my mind, it remains a curiosity worth discussing outside of the realm of the usual refrain of "Mrs Hammersmith" or whatever.
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 8:19 am: |
|
Hello
Regarding Jeff Leahy's comments above about how complete are the available press records.
I was just over at www.victorianperiodicals.com, where I got my temporary password and had a look to see how many different publications were active in England between 1888 and 1905 (the dates for searching do not go beyond 1910) and there seem to be thousands. There are 40 listed for England in the press section of the casebook.
I may be wrong but is it reasonable to assume that the majority of press coverage has been covered ? Especially since coverage was likely to have extended for some years after the murders and it must be absolutely impossible to say with anything approaching certainty that one particular line (we all know which one) could not have appeared somewhere.
Regarding copies of police documents. I was flicking through Knights book and landed on a police description of a suspect (have no idea which one) and Knight seemed to say that a copy of this description was circulated to other stations. I can find the page and edition if no-one believes me but it will take a day or two as I am on the road. It must surely be probable rather than possible that police documents such as witness statements, inventories, crime scene descriptions were also disseminated in some way?
Everyone seems to acknowledge that a wealth of material has been lost over the years and yet it seems strange logic that given that loss, we assume that the copy of the inventory placed in the coroners file was the one and only copy?
Now it is of course possible to say that until evidence of another copy surfaces we must assume its the only one but that seems a little....strange...to me. But I could be wrong.
And I have to ask something else. Forgetting Barrets possesion of the Sphere book for a second. There has been discussion that Maybrick could or would never have chanced upon Crashaws infamous line. And that may be so. But does the obscurity of the line rule out authorship by another (assumedly better read and probably Catholic in deference to J.V.O.) party at a time that could constitute an old hoax ?
And another thing......I remember hearing somewhere that MJK's thigh bone had been split with an axe or something (Nick Warrens suggestion ?). Has that been confirmed as true? I see no evidence in the autopsy reports. Anyway, if it is true, that is something surely the genuine Ripper would have noted if he had written the thing? Its a big jump up (in terms of effort) from slicing soft tissue to splitting thigh bones.
Awaiting the Omslaught,
Mr Poster |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
Why is there a dot over the "s" in Hainsworth as shown?
Someone is going to have to explain this to me:
Why is "Mrs Hammersmith" as an example, "evidence" and not "a point of view"?
I have not seen any evidence that there was absolutely not a Mrs Hammersmith on that road at the relevant times. The second cousin of a neighbour who visits often, the friend of an aquaintance from out of town who has spent the year there. Whatever. In this case , abscence of evidence of a Mrs Hammersmith in that city, is not evidence of abscence of Mrs Hammersmith from that city.
Constant repetition of points of view do not make evidence.
Can someone show me evidence of modern hoax?
And do not please say "textual evidence" as that is interpretation.
Constant repetion of the opinion that Crashaw was not commonly known at that time does not mean evidence that an old hoaxer could not have known his work.
It was an opinion at one time that one-off was off modern usage and that opinion was put forward as "evidence" until it was shown that one-off was in usage then. Now the opinion (it never was evidence) is not put forward so much anymore.
The only possible piece of textual evidence is tin box empty. The rest is just opinion.
Levesl of chemicals in ink that correspond to modern ink is evidence. Poste House is not.
Lars |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Hello
Sorry, but I have to comment on this:
If Barrett's handwring was so lousy and his spelling worst this would actually explain the diary's handwriting not being his.
Is that not in the same league as saying Maybrick was a junkie which might explain the diary not being in his hand? Plus celebrity magazine is in the same league as Titbits. Its hardly literature.
Basically the guy was an idiot, but he had a genius for getting around obstacles.
For a guy with a talent for getting round obstacles, hes not really doing so well, is he? Or maybe being an alchoholic that no-one believes with a fairly tragic marraige behind him counts as doing alright.
Rgarding chloroacetamide. The current tests as I have read them were not appropriate given the technique. The AFI one was definitely open to attack and should never have been presented as evidence.
My gut feeling is that levels of chloroacetamide were not found and definitely not in any signifcant amounts (ie. those indicative of modern ink) or with any level of certainty. One group involved in all this discussion has heralded the "presence" of the compound as indicative of modern ink. If its not found in new tests they must therefore surely accept that it was either old ink or cleverly fashioned pseudo ink. So we can add chemistry to Barrets long list of acomplishments.
For this compound, use capilliary gas chromatography with mass spectrometric detectors. Avoid labs that seem to get involved with an eye on money/fame (McCrone) and use labs used to getting results that stand up in court (forensic labs, non-commercial). Get a separate forensic lab to take the samples that will be used by all labs (and you have to have a range of labs). Follow the regime I outlined in a previous post about blanks etc. Alert the labs to the potential of contamination from cosmetics etc. Make sure the tests are double blind. Only an independent lawyer should know which samples are which prior to delivery of results. And that should do it. Difficult to organise and finance maybe but the only sure way. If there is any question about techniques etc., document the tests and results and get the RSC to check them. Not some local expert.
Labs that appear in newspapers and TV touting their discoveries of forgeries are the ones to avoid.
Is the diary going to be freed up for testing?
And I still say analyse the thing for arsenic (and strychnine).
Mr Poster
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 8:35 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster --"Is that not in the same league as saying Maybrick was a junkie which might explain the diary not being in his hand?"
No, because in this case there is compelling evidence that Barrett was up to no-good from the get-go, and compelling evidence he knows where the diary came from. It quite simply gibberish, for instance, to believe he came by the Crashaw quote innocently, and naive to believe he bought a blank Victorian diary for "research" purposes six weeks before the Maybrick Diary appeared from nowhere. On the otherhand, there's nothing to associate Maybrick with the book. I'll tell you what, Mr. Poster. Research the known history of the typescript Barrett had on his Word Processor and the conflicting stories Barrett and Graham told about it, and come back and convince me they aren't concealing something. As for Mrs. Graham... Maybe I'm naive, too good-natured and charitable, but I say there is compelling evidence that Barrett's usual editor (Anne Graham) wasn't too keen on committing fraud. Seems to me she was pretty upset about something in the Spring of 1992. Ergo, is it not reasonable to believe Barrett needed an amanuensis? There might even be a reasonable guess for who this man was...
Is the Diary going to be freed up for testing?"
Why don't you ask? I certainly wish you the best.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on May 19, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 8:43 pm: |
|
Jeff--Writing it and hoaxing it are two different activities. Work it out. RP |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
Albert Einstein..E=MC2
RJ Palmer..
“Barrett has thrown out so much garbage that otherwise intelligent and perceptive people, finally having become utterly exhausted by his tales, flung up their hands in despair and concluded that he had nothing to do with it.”
Paul Begg..
'Sure Barrett has thrown out a lot of garbage, but by looking at that garbage one appreciates that throughout the nightmare or Barratt’s emotional roller-coaster ride he has never given a coherent account of the conception and execution of the forgery – except once, and then he described a sales procedure at the auction house which the auction house denied ever having used – and that’s why I doubt that he had anything to do with the forgery. R.J. Palmer gets round this by postulating a cunning and manipulative Barrett, but there’s no real evidence that Barrett was cunning an manipulative.'
JLeahy...
"There are a number of problems with Mike Barrett's claims to have forged the diary. Indeed there is a good probability (which I altered to possibility) that he did not. "
Given the evidence I beleive this statement to be correct. While I understand that you have a theory about a cunning manipulative Barrett who forced his innocent wife to write the diary on his behalve you apparantly have no firm evidence to back this theory up.
Indeed I could equally postulate that Mike Barrett was an inocent patsie used by his cunning, manipulative and lets face it litterate wife.
However you stack the cards the fact remains that Mike Barrett is simply 'No' Mark Hoffman.
The FACT is we still do not know...which is why some of us are trying to find new tests to solve the problem....and hopefully interveiw Mr Mike Barrett along the way to get at the facts instead of coming up with dogmatic theories.
The idea that I have ever been dogmatic is clearly ridiculous, I am totally open to all sides of the argument and intend to be as balanced and objective as possible.
In the mean time I will continue to quote however I think is relivant, be that Fido, Skinner, Begg or James Maybrick himself.
I beleive my time would be better spent trying to raise some money inorder to undertake some of the constuctive tests being proposed by Mr Posters newly formed FENCE party.
Are you thinking what he's thinking?
Jeff
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
Mr Poster
Have read your posts with great interest. I have at last heard back from McCrone and at least now have some ideas on prices. While I understand your worries about labs seeking publicity there are also some advantages from my point of veiw with a company keen to allow camera's in on the process. Having tests in one place also has some financial advantages.
However it is also clear to me that Mccrones main interest publicity wise are in documents like the Vineland...perhaps John Omlar has done to good a job convincing the world that the Maybrick Diary is a Hoax.
I am lissening to what your saying and have made some inquiries with a British lab that have been working on a story that I was involved with, re:Brian Jones autopsie.
I also understand fears expressed by Caz that there is no point in just carrying out tests. The same logic also dictates that you cant cost tests if you dont know what the tests are going to be.
Hopefully you will all see the logic in starting to get the dialogue running first and pinning it to specific's as we progress.
I think we can clear up the chloroacetamide problems you have raised but I think it is going to take more than proving its not Diamine ink to crack this one.
With reguards to Lars Comments (oh..hi Lars) the main problem all along has been getting someone interested in a one off documentry about a Diary which is almost certainly a fake. Broadcasters are only interested in series which have cost advantages and apart from say the BBC a one off covering new tests on the Maybrick is simply to inhibative, which is why I have been trying to get a series of six off the ground.
As a matter of interest I dont beleive doctor Bonds autopsie mentions the use of an axe.
Must dash..Jeff
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:01 am: |
|
Hello R.J. Palmer
All very interesting. However, as I have no doubt said before, I'm not really interested in Mike Barret, his wife, his problems, his word processor or even Jack the Ripper. As an analytical problem the book is however interesting as by chance or design it has proved very difficult to pin down as fraud or not, modern or old. And I have pretty much confined myself to the discussion of analysis as occassional forays outside of that arena have proved..........frustrating?
The fact remains that the one piece of actual evidence (not opinion or conjecture or interpretation) touted as showing modernity was the "presence" of chloroacetamide, a piece of evidence that can be argued to be so absolutely and fundamentally flawed as to be worthless. If the kind of "inductive logic" that is usually applied to the textual evidence had been equally applied to the chloroacetamide evidence, I doubt it would ever have been produced as evidence of anything.
So any discussion exploring the possibilities of better analysis of chloroacetamide is worth having in my opinion. It may be more fruitful than trying to tease out the complexities of an alchoholic. Whether or not the diary is freed up or not, while interesting, is some one elses business.
An interesting aside to the quality of Mike Barrets writing prowess is the fact that at least one professional has come out and said that they were impressed as to the depiction of a drug addicted sociopath. If a chemist gets an analysis wrong, thats OK, its expected, instruments foul up. If a psychologist gets its wrong they can only blame their own skills. So when one is willing to be public about something like this, they must be fairly convinced in their own minds.
Mike Barret could probably write, but whether his characterisation skills were enough to convince a professional psychologist; I'm just not sure about that at all. I wouldnt know a psychos writing from the Popes but I assume a professional would have some idea.
Cloroacetamide and arsenic/strychnine. Given that it seems fair to say that the absolute date of application of ink to paper cannot be determined, these analyses must be the ones to go with surely?
Mr Poster |
Mark Fulcher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Dear JTR Messagers,
I am currently taking a psychology degree at UCE in Birmingham and am thinking of doing my dissertation on serial killers. I'd like to use JTR as a baseline as almost certainly all other serial killers postdating him would have known about him and therefore may have used his MO as a reference to work from. I know we're getting into an area of impulse over predetermination and that's up for grabs but as a starting point who do I need to talk to about JTR MO and possible psychological mindset. I understand that this is probably a HUGE question but a steer would be useful.
Mark |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
Hello Jeff Leahy
I agree with most of what you are saying. But remeber...without a few labs all doing tests, its very difficult to defend results from just one lab.
If the ink did show up amounts of chloroacetamide approaching what Voller said should be in th emodern ink, I would say thats very damning evidence....if not conclusive that the document is modern (and made in Liverpool). I just dont buy the one about "small ink manufacturers". And I would have no more to say on the matter. But if there is no chloroacetamide, its a very difficult situation and the forgery was done a good while ago or else Mark Hoffman can surrender his crown as King Forger to the unknown modern forger.
Did you have any luck with anyone about the flourescent stains on the paper?
Im not sure what other scientists have said but I imagine that anything more exotic than chloroacetamide/arsenic tests will be non-reproducible in a similar vein to the McNeill test. It doesnt mean they are wrong or not working, just that if they cant be reproduced relaibly they are not worth the hassle.
Voller mentioned an ink spot underneath some glue in the diary? It seems to me that that has to be a candidate for comparison with ink that is not underneath any glue. Maybe analyse the glue as well.
But if mass spectrometry is not involved, chloroacetamide tests are just blowing a waste of time I reckon.
But Good Luck!
Mr Poster
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:14 am: |
|
Hello
Jeff writes
What I think scientists are saying is that they can’t really recommend specific tests to produce specific results without seeing the diary.
THis is true to some extent but I imagine that a lot of scientists give this response in being asked to date the diary. Ask them to check for chloroacetamide at 0.26% and the answer should be quite different.
In fact testing for it seems to be standard in the world of printer ink manufacturing so somebody has a method to do it. And as chloroacetamide has been oft heralded by one group as definitive evidence of ink modernity, the abscence of it must logically mean the opposite?
Mr Poster |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Jeff Leahy-- Thanks for the message. However, I need to make a quick point. I am not willing to debate Paul Begg with you acting as an intermediary. I don't think this is unreasonable. If Paul wants to discuss Barrett, Graham, and the Diary, I invite him to join us. He's most welcome.
I've listen to several hours of Barrett's tapes. I am rather amazed to hear it argued that Barret was not manipulative and evasive. What about Anne Graham's own statements about the 'atmosphere' in that house?? Paul's depiction of Barrett runs directly counter to Anne's own statements about how one didn't dare go against Barrett. Who was calling up Feldman at 2 o'clock in the morning and dropping bogus hints about Silk House Court? Who led him next door to Battlecrease?
I'm increasingly puzzled by your depiction of Mr. Begg's position. You state that he doubts Barrett wrote it. You state that he doubts Graham wrote it. Yet, I recall his extreme skepticism with Mevlin's suggestion that it was written by others and Graham and Barrett were placers. And yet, he admits his belief that it is a modern forgery. Very puzzling. Very puzzling. Where on earth did it come from? After all these years no one has a theory?
Please take a close look at Anne Graham's statements in Ripper Diary and elsewhere. Like I said, take special note her description of the atmosphere in the Barrett's house in those years. Laugh if you wish, but I think people are wrong about Graham. I think it is highly likely that she was the victim in all of this. "The Diary was never meant to be published...not by me...I was hoping Michael would write a story...." Her statement is as close to a confession as we are likely to ever get. Yes, I believe she conceived and wrote much of the Diary, but I also believe she intended it to be a piece of fiction. Barrett, in his impulsive duplicity, went out and sold it as the real McCoy with the help of a penman. I can't prove it, but it makes utter sense based on the evidence we have. The rest is explained by Graham's fear and embarrassment, and Feldman's bizarre theorizing. Graham's 2nd provenance, made up in a secret meeting in a Hotel bar, and later in a garden (for fear of electronic bugging devices!) cannot be taken seriously. But I think she needs to be given a break. She did what she could, having been dragged into this mess by Barrett. Listen to her own words, it's what she's trying to tell you. RP
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
Mr. Poster writes:
"The AFI one was definitely open to attack and should never have been presented as evidence. "
Alec Voller, Head Chemist of Diamine Ink writes:
The Leeds report is profoundly disturbing. That any possibility of cross examination should be allowed to arise in Gas Chromatography is unforgivable, but even worse, calibration of the instrument appears to have been very cursory and its ability to detect tiny traces of chloracetamide assumed rather than properly established. For reasons which I will expand upon later, it is questioned whether the SEM/EDX examination which forms the central core of this report should have been perfomed at all. This is not necessarily to say that the results obtained at Leeds are wrong but I feel that a distinct question mark hangs over them. BY CONTRAST WITH THE ABOVE, THE REPORT BY ANALYSIS FOR INDUSTRY PRESENTS US WITH ALMOST A MODEL PICTURE OF HOW AN ANALYSIS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AND REPORTED."
Melvin Harris writes:
I have now spoken to Prof Roberts [UMIST] and he confirms that he was never told by Harrison that AFI had no access to the Diary and thus could not run tests on plain paper. He agrees this should have been spelled out to him. [AFI was not given access to the Diary, and unfortunately were limitted by having to rely on 'full stops' taken from the Diary by Robert Kurantz, the chemist who orginally worked with Kenneth Rendell]. He also also agrees that chloroacetamide, though around for many years, was not a commercial proposition until its manufacture after World War 2. He further states that he advised an exact repetition of the AFI tests as a sound scientific step and a fair one."
Confused? |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
I should really let this go, but I have to address one more thing Mr. Poster wrote:
"it bothers me that such a group of men are so familiar with arsenic poisoning."
This old chestnut has been cracked so many times, I'm surprised it has popped up again.
Where is the evidence (outside of Paul Feldman's claims) that the Diary shows sophisticated knowledge of arsenic abuse?
Below in bold, are depictions of Maybrick's abuse taken from "The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick" by Bernard Ryan (1971, 1986) a popular book that was available in the Central Liverpool Library at the time the Diary showed up. Following them, in italic, are excerpts from the Maybrick Diary (I'm using Harrison, Pocket Books edit. 1995)
"His wife noticed how frequently he started the day by rubbing the backs of his hands, complaining of poor circulation" (Ryan, p. 25)
"As usual, my hands are cold" (Diary, p. 287)
"For some time he had the habit of taking strong medicines." (Ryan, p. 29)
"I am in the habit of taking strong medicines." (Diary, p. 303)
"Maybrick complained of ceaseless headaches over a period of three months, of a numbness of the left leg and hand...etc." (Ryan, p. 29)
"True my head and arms pain me." (Diary, 288)
"He had never had more than two days without a headache." (Ryan, p. 33)
"My head aches." (Diary, p. 289)
"At last he told his patient that he could find very little the matter with him.." (Ryan, p. 42)
"Fuller believes there is very little the matter with me." (Diary, p. 316)
These symptoms are in nearly every book on the Maybrick case. As can be seen above, in several instances, the wording is even the same. How much expertise did the diarist really need??
(Message edited by rjpalmer on May 20, 2005) |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Rj I dont beleive that I have ever stated that Mike Barrett or Anne Graham didn't hoax or write the Maybrick Diary.
My statement was clear..That there were a number of problems with Mike Barretts claims to have forged the diary...and I think this is a fair statement.
Your analisis of what might have happened is very interesting...I dont think I've any problems with it...but its not proven or fact..and whether I beleive it or not doesn't matter...the fact is that Maybrick diary is probably a modern hoax but could still conceivably be an old hoax.
All I've been trying to say...in a very exhausting way..is that we just dont know for sure. and further tests might help to solve this.
But because it is very hard to prove we need to approach these tests cautiously and know exactly what we are trying to acheive.
Mr Poster cross referancing tests at say three differant laboritories could become very expensive are you certain the results will have to be cross referanced this amount?...gulp.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Mark Fulcher
I think you could be in the wrong thread here but if I was to recommend anybody on case book for a good ruck over Ripper MO's then Glen Andersons your man. Try the Tabram or was Stride a victim thread.
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1764
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Have you a date for the quote by Voller?
You see, AFI and Leeds both tested the ink in 1994, and in October 1995 Voller examined the writing visually and - well, we know what his opinions were: its appearance told him conclusively that the ink wasn't Diamine. And he thought the writing was 90+ years old. He also said that if he thought a modern ink had been used he would have said so. As far as I'm aware, he has not retracted these specific opinions since, although when he later saw a sample Nick Warren had written using Diamine, he did remark that the fading and bronzing looked 'similar' to the diary's.
Of course, since Professor Roberts's condemnation of AFI's method of identification, Shirley did get Dr Simpson to test the paper for chloroacetamide, with a negative result. But I don't see how that would make any difference to Professor Roberts's concerns about the identification itself.
Bottom line is we still don't have a positive identification we can safely rely on, either for chloroacetamide or pre-1992 Diamine.
I admire your bravery in coming out publicly with a forgery hypothesis that may or may not be supported by the ongoing investigation Keith Skinner and others are working on.
For what it's worth, I don't believe for one second that Anne would have signed that early collaboration agreement if she knew Mike had got a pal to forge the diary for him, based on a work of complete fiction that she herself had conceived and composed. Ask any wife what they would have done, and they will say "I would have called Doreen in a panic and told her not to touch it with a barge pole". If Anne ever feared the consequences of Mike passing off her work as possibly genuine, she would have feared them at this point, not two years later, well after the police had called and decided to drop their brief investigation, finding no material evidence of forgery.
You really ought to go back over everything and see if the evidence also fits with Mike knowing not a sausage about the diary's age or author, when he called Doreen about it. Yes, Mike knows how he acquired the diary and when. Anne may know the when, but you have to prove she knows more than that. Where's your evidence?
Take another look at those transcription errors and see if they could be the result of Mike trying to type a transcript from the diary, for Doreen and co to work from, and Anne taking over because she can see he is making a pig's ear of it, and having signed on the dotted line, the secretary in her wants to make a reasonable job of it for Doreen.
Or do you seriously believe that this transcript, complete with errors, was all Mike's work, which was then corrected by his vastly more literate (and loyal and generous to a fault) penpal, who handwrote the words into the scrapbook in early April 1992, using an ink that has so far defied all efforts to identify it as post-1888, and a handwriting that looks natural to the experts, yet has failed to be positively identified as belonging to any of Mike's pals?
By April 13, Shirley was showing this newborn creation to the curator of 19th century manuscripts at the British Museum, and the owner of Jarndyce, the antiquarian bookshop, both of whom confirmed in writing their joint opinion that it looked 'right' for the period, with no indications of a later date.
Do you know of any of Mike's acquaintances likely to possess the ability to fool so many professionals over the years? Professionals with no axes to grind, but reputations to lose if they give an 'old' verdict and then RJ comes along years later and demonstrates using the available evidence that the thing was written in Diamine ink in April 1992 by a pal of Mike Barrett's?
Do you think you can demonstrate this?
You haven't even started yet - IMHO.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Hello again
I tracked down the two papers that originally decsribed the problems associated with Fowlers solution consumption:
Hutchinson, J. (1887). Arsenic cancer. Br Med J, 2:1280-1281
Hutchinson, J. (1888) Diseases of the skin: On some examples of Arsenic_keratosis of the skin and of Arsenic-Cancer. Transactions of the Pathological Society of London 39:352-363
And they describe grueseom effects of the over use of Fowlers solution.
And I cannot understand why Maybrick was not exhibiting these signs of chronic use (skin lesions, skin cancers, discoloration etc). He should have looked lke a leper yet his skin appears clear in the photos of him. Was his arsenic addiction a proven fact? I can understand that you can build up resistance to the acute effects of arsenic but surely no-one can build up resistance to cancer?
Mr Poster |
Andy Arnold
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Why are people still discussing the Maybrick diary?? It's a hoax - enough said. The debate should move on to somebody else. JTR can only be one or possibly two people and any way to eliminating the fakes must be taken seriously. It wasn't Maybrick - move on.
Andy |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 4:07 am: |
|
Hello
First, Jeff, 3 labs would be a minimum in my book. Expensive I know, but my opinions on this have been expressed before. Its easy to poke holes in one labs results, maybe two, even three. Above that its very hard (assuming they are in agreement).
Anyway, to the battlements:
The Leeds report is profoundly disturbing. That any possibility of cross examination should be allowed to arise in Gas Chromatography is unforgivable, but even worse, calibration of the instrument appears to have been very cursory and its ability to detect tiny traces of chloracetamide assumed rather than properly established. For reasons which I will expand upon later, it is questioned whether the SEM/EDX examination which forms the central core of this report should have been perfomed at all. This is not necessarily to say that the results obtained at Leeds are wrong but I feel that a distinct question mark hangs over them. BY CONTRAST WITH THE ABOVE, THE REPORT BY ANALYSIS FOR INDUSTRY PRESENTS US WITH ALMOST A MODEL PICTURE OF HOW AN ANALYSIS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AND REPORTED."
I've never seen the Leeds report. Assuming they did use GC (and Shirley Harrisons book seems to sugegst they used TLC?), and I am going to say this one more time: contamination isnt unusual especially in this method under the circumstances of the tests carried out (for a compund not usually analysed, etc., etc). Recording the fact shows responsible operations. And if they did use GC, a negative result with that technique usually says more than a result obtained hovering above the DL. What did disturb me about Leeds was the photo in C.A.M.'s book of th ebook lying on a lab bench before testing in the presence of reagent bottles! Tsk, tsk.
Mr Vollers opinion about the AFI test is not strange at all. Im sure the procedures were fine. Indeed the procedures for lung transplants are rock solid as well. Everything should go fine all the time according to the logic that a good procedure means good results. Yet people die on the table all the time. He only comments on the procedures. I dont even have to argue this. But once again: GC alone is unable to identify anything. I have said why before, its easy to find standard texts supporting that fact, its a moot point. Just look at the chromatogram for the blank.
Leeds were asked I assume to identify the compound. A qualitative analysis. There is no need to go faffing about with quantitative calibrations to identify something. Basic chemistry. Especially when being paid 50 quid an hour.
No aspertions have been cast on AFI either. If you lose an eye, and pay someone 50 quid to replace it and you get a marbel, thats OK. Pay the same guy 10000 and you get the Faberge of optics. In both cases he has acted professionally and responsibly. You get what you pay for. His character is the same either way.
Plus Leeds were not asked to measure "tiny traces" of anything. I will elaborate:
Trace analysis - analysis to ppb range,
Ultra trace analysis - analysis to lower concentrations
Micro analysis - analysis of microgram samples.
Leeds were asked to do a micro-analysis (and even that is an exaggeration). Identifying 0.26% is not "a tiny trace". In chemistry terms, its a high concentration. The sample was small, which makes it micro-analysis, the concentration was large which doesnt make it trace analysis.
And two words: straightened paperclip.
As to arsenic, I'm no doctor. And, in support of RJP from my perilous fence position, any description Ive seen of chronic arsenic poisoning (from ground water) includes some really nasty skin problems. I dont know why JM did not display some of these but maybe a passing medico could shed some light on it.
The biggest contamination problem with respect to the testing of this diary has been the contamination of the opinion of professionals with the venom that seems to surround this document. If I was a professor who got a phone call from melvin H., I might be confused/hassled enough to say anyything to get away. I believe the man from Leeds gave a good indication of the sort of communication that he had experienced with Melvin H. Doubtless the UMIST chap got a bit of it as well.
And one last bit of advice for anyone still putting faith in the technical results so far: buy a textbook on GC and its use in forensic analysis.
Mr Poster |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1767
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
Hi Mr Poster,
Do you know if any of the available photos of James Maybrick were taken towards the end of his life? He died when he was 50.
Is there any information on what his complexion was like in 1888/9?
Mr Blotchy Face always grins down at me when I think of JM's arsenic habit.
There is a lot of information about his various medicines in Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Hi Andy Arnold
Jeff,
Why are people still discussing the Maybrick diary?? It's a hoax
I'm not cirtain why you singled me out here, but asking why sane grown people should spend hours of there time hacking each other to bits over a diary probably does merit a responce.
I cant talk for anybody else but I can explain my interest, and as it is quiet with John sitting safely tucked up in Hospitol (HI John hope your feeling Better) If your sitting comfortably I'll begin:
In the 1980’s a collector of antiquities, named Mark Holfman, started making a lot of money out of the Mormon Church. He was an expert who seemed to have the knack of discovering rare manuscripts. But it wasn’t until his creditors started to chase his ever extravagant life style that a series of bombs and mysterious death’s aroused police suspicion. In order to throw them of the sent he faked a bomb attack on himself. It was one fake too many and the game was up. The result was the exposure of amongst other forgeries the famous ‘Salamander’ letter. But just how many forgeries he created will probably never be known.
Creating Hoax’s is a time honoured profession. As far back as the Emperor Constantine, armies of scribes have been keen to embrace the demand for rare manuscripts and paper documents. The Voynich manuscript created sometime between the 12th and 16th century may well have been created to fill the demand by rich patrons of private libraries. But these documents have reliable provenance. How certain can experts be of a documents Authenticity?
The truth, which may surprise people, is that it is almost impossible.
Mike Barrett was the exact antithesis of Mark Hoffman. A poorly educated man with a propensity to drink too much, he was to make an amazing discovery, which for a few short months would fool the World. The Diary of jack the Ripper was examined by every expert and was to under go every test. Said to be written by 19th Century cotton merchant James Maybrick it soon became apparent that contextual anomalies within the diary itself didn’t agree with the scientists findings. Then traces of chlorocitimide, a modern ink preservative, seemed to confirm that it was indeed an elaborate hoax.
But could this simple ‘Billy liar’ character, a man who seemed unable to give a credible explanation of how the diary was created, really have been responsible for a document that fooled so many people? Current opinion is greatly divided on the subject but nobody has ever categorically proved when, where, and how the Diary was made.
If a simple working class man with no expert knowledge could achieve such a conundrum then how many other documents hoaxed or forged by men like Hoffman over the centuries, could have deceived and cheated the world’s historians?
But the Maybrick diary is not the only example of how difficult it is to prove when ink has been laid to an older piece of paper or parchment. The Vineland Map, said to prove the Vikings discover American, is another example. If the out lines of America and Greenland were added to an older map with some provenance, how would you ever be able to tell its authenticity? Again it was the contextual anomalies that first raised suspicions but the debate over whether medieval ink contained Anatase still means that the authenticity of the map is hotly contended. Even though it is widely accepted that the Vikings discovered America the map is probably still a fake.
And if it was a simple matter of throwing money at more and better tests then we would have a simple answer to our problem, but it is not. The Casement Black Diaries are a perfect example of money failing to extinguish the fire. For years the British government spent fortunes to prove Roger Casement, an IRA sympathizer executed for his roll in the Easter up rising, had written a salacious diary proving he was homosexual. The public discrase for which surely sent him to the gallows. But were the government really trying to cover up the work of MI5. It may seem preposterous today but the conservative government of the time had MI5 produce the Zenoviev letter to discredit the Labour party and even after the Second World War many people believed that Russian commissars were coming to take over the country if labour got into power.
But surely the idea of a hoax or forgery could do no harm. Once you’ve prove it’s a hoax it’s all over, is it NOT?
But a spark and an idea can be very dangerous indeed. Know one should underestimate the potential power of even a discredited artefact.
At the same time MI5 were forging the Zinoviev letter Czar Nicholas’s 11 also had his secret police at work. What they were producing was as radiculas as if Mike Barrett had produced a diary stating James Maybrick was Sherlock Holms. A forgery based on a work of fiction, but the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were exactly that, a hoax with a message that people wanted to be true. Adolf Hitler set about quoting it in Mein Kampf and by 1945 over six million Jews were dead. Perhaps that should have been the end of it but even today extreme Middle East terror groups still site the document for justification of world wide jihad.
So an idea can be very powerful indeed, which is why it is import to get reliable authentication. Provenance and Contextual evidence might be our most powerful tools but the last say is inevitably with the scientist. It is up to them to come up with conclusive proof.
This can be a long and difficult process in which it is important to ask the right questions and test for specific answers. Although it is reassuring that technical advances make the probability authentication more probable. It has never been easier for the Hoaxer to acquire the knowledge it will require to deceive History.
Given ever greater demand for original documents by collectors around the world on places such as ebay, it has never been more tempting for the forger and creator of hoax’s to ply there craft.
So what next? Will we be able to disprove the diary of Jesse James? Or the confession of Lee Harvey Oswald or will one day a new Mike Barrett eventually find a diary that proves, once and for all, that Prince Charles really did murder the Princess of Wales?
No I don’t believe the Maybrick Diary is dead I have the feeling it is only the beginning. I believe it’s very much alive and relevant today and trying to get at he facts behind the diary is of utmost importance.
I dont always agree with everyone in Maybrick land but I do understand there passion. For me it is a much bigger question than is it an old or modern fake, it is the power of the hoax itself.
Without doubt one of the most fascinating threads on casebook.
Hopefully considering a wider picture.
Jeff
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 427
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
"a collector of antiquities, named Mark Holfman,"
A fascinating sidebar for me is how Hofmann went about generating paper trails to create provenance out of thin air.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 629
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
"Provenance and Contextual evidence (?) might be our most powerful tools but the last say is inevitably with the scientist. It is up to them to come up with conclusive proof. "
This shows a misunderstanding of the basic principles of document examination. Every book on the subject is careful to point out that scientific tests can never 'authenticate' a document. Paper and ink are fairly simple things, and a document can pass any number of tests and still be bogus. It is never a matter of what 'tests' a document passes, it's a matter of what tests it fails. A cruddy provenance and a suspicious owner is enough to damn a document. In this case, I need not say much more.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on May 27, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
"Do you know if any of the available photos of James Maybrick were taken towards the end of his life? He died when he was 50. "
Maybrick had his photograph taken in November, 1888. This might be the famous picture of Maybrick (the one on Feldman's book).
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
A cruddy provenance and a suspicious owner is enough to damn a document.
But everyone has known about the cruddy provenance and suspicious owner (I assume you mean Mike, not Robert  ) for over ten years now.
If that was, in your opinion, truly enough to damn the diary, beyond the point of any possible future redemption (if, for example, evidence emerged that the diary existed long before Mike got his paws on it), then why have you been popping in and out of Diary World on such a regular long-term basis, spending much time and effort suggesting more ways to try and damn the diary, while speculating in the meantime about who created it and when?
You say you need not say much more, yet you have been saying a lot more for several years now.
How many more years will it take for you to admit that there might be a reason why this nut has been so hard for everyone to crack, not just you?
Love,
Caz
X |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Hello
"Scientific truth is what scientific consensus says it is" by Thomas Kuhn
Its not so much what tests it fails or passes but what the scientific consensus is. It could fail all the tests on the planet and scientific consensus could still say "they dont matter because...."
I will admit that science cannot offer certainty, and some people demand certainty (me, primarily) but I can console myself with the thought that in the real world, scientific consensus even with its unceratinties, has proved consistently more accurate than any other source perceived as certain. Unpopular as it may seem, textual evidence, reliant as it is on interpretation and assumption, must surely fall into the latter group?
But if you are shot at, science with its inherent uncertainty, is what you use to calculate when to duck, not interpretations of texts written by other people who describe being shot at. I guess that analogy is going to get shot at a bit.
Mr Poster |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
