|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher Lowe
Sergeant
Username: Clowe
Post Number: 25
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 4:47 am: | 
|
I have just read Deborah Cameron's 'Stiiill going .. the quest for Jack the Ripper' at the end of the article she suggests that the diary may have been part of a plot to discredit Ripperology and the experts involved.
What does every one else think |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1891
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Christopher,
My response to that would be why?
Ive not read the article you mention so please share with me Ms Camerons reasons...if she states them that is.
Many thanks,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Howdy
Seems a lot of trouble to go to to discredit something that most non-ripper people think is half cracked anyway. Is there any benefit to discrediting it? If it was done to discredit it, would they not have appeared by now to say "It was me, this is how I did it"?
Plain old/modern hoax maybe but a concious effort to discredit something thats only of interest to the people actually involved seems strange indeed.
I cant find that dissertation.
Mr P |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
The idea that it was done to discredit Ripperology seems pretty strange to me. There are a number of people doing quite fine without the diary, and very few Ripperologists give it any credence at all.
If it has anything to do with Ripperology in general, I would think it's more likely to be a prank played a particularly cynical Ripperologist.
But, like Monty, I would really like to know what her reasoning was.
Best regards,
John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
I don't know. Perhaps Ms. Cameron was improperly extrapolating intent from results.
--John |
Christopher Lowe
Sergeant
Username: Clowe
Post Number: 26
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
She wrote it in Social Text 40 (1994). She gave an overview of the controversy, notes how the diary could be accepted by both conservatives and feminists (JTR killed by his wife). She notes how Ripperology has imported modern psuedoscience (profiling) to Victorian Britain and she provides a brief comment on the Ripper industry.
In her conclusion she suggest possibly as a joke that it is part of an attempt to discredit ripperologists and 'experts' like profilers who attempt to give it scientific respectability, possibly by a disgruntled Ripperologist. It is possible however that this may have been meant as a touch of humour. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Christopher,
Thanks for the reply. I'll need to try and find a copy of it and see what she has to say.
It sounds interesting at the very least.
Best regards,
John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:25 am: |
|
Sorry sorry, double post.
Was there any kind of kerfuffle in the couple of years preceeding the appearance of the diary in which a ripperologist might have been annoyed enough to put pen to paper and write the thing?
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:22 am: |
|
Howdy
It would seem that is has done more to discredit the following:
Science - which singularly cannot prove its a new forgery
Historians - who still cant find one date Maybrick (for example) was some where he shouldnt have been
Document examiners - some of whom still think the author gives signs of being a bit, how should we say, not well in the head
Investigators/authors - who still cannot get any kind of reasonable explanation (or something approaching the truth) out of the nest of forgers
But I would give, oh I dont know....my left kidney ? to know who wrote it.
Mr P.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1738
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
Re: Science being "discredited" --
One small thing for everyone to remember, if only in the name of my friends at one specific lab:
If you don't have an object, you can't test an object.
--John
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Re: Science being discredited
It did actually have a crack at it! They did have an object and they did test (sort of) an object.
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1741
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
Yes, some scientists have had some sort of limited "crack" at both objects.
And some have never seen it, despite being approached about it and replying three separate times to three separate people that they'd like to (and would need at least to examine it) in order to determine what might and might not be possible.
But we've done this before. We know where this discussion ends. In any case, I stand by my initial suspicion that Ms. Cameron was fallaciously extrapolating the intent from the results.
What amazes me, though, is not that someone thinks this might conceivably have been all a petty professional ploy, but that so much of the supposedly intended audience was so ready and willing to suspend not only their disbelief but a good bit of their common sense as well.
I suppose it's funny, in some ways,
--John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Hey there Mr. Poster,
(Gotta love that handle)
It's an impressive sounding list of discrediting, but the devil's in the details.
Scientists have admittedly made a generally sloppy mess of the diary investigation. The ink tests are all over the board. Some of the reports are simply reprehensible, and many of the techniques used are without demonstrable scientific value.
I gotta speak up for the historians though. Oddly enough, they can have a pretty hard time proving where someone was on a specific night 117 years ago. Heck, I couldn't PROVE where *I* was last Sat if was a life saving alibi. And given that the textual flaws in the diary have been excused so easily, I am sure we'd find a way to keep the diary alive.
And the poor maligned document examiners. No reputable document examiner can tie the diary to Maybrick's writing along with the required letters for him to be Jack. In fact, they came to a rather different conclusion on the basis of both the handwriting and the writing style.
The person claiming to read personality, Hannah Koren, gets no credit in my book. She's a graphologist. They believe they can read personality from handwriting. There's no more scientific basis for that then there is for phrenology or astrology. (It's up there with Pamela Ball's Maybrick sceance...)
As far as investigators/authors getting to the bottom of the mess... They sure haven't. Outside of Harris, few have really tried. There just isn't much to work with right now. But IMO the answer IS in investigation, not science.
I wouldn't go so far as to offer a kidney, but I would dearly like to know the answer as well.
Best regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Hi John,
Outside of Harris, few have really tried.
Not sure who you are insulting most here. 
Harris tried and got nowhere.
The 'few' are still working their way down to the bottom of the mess and you have no idea how hard they are working, or how near the mirky bottom they may be as we speak.
They can't do any worse than others before them, or those who do nothing at all.
Love,
Caz
X |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
Hiya Caz,
Ok, that probably wasn't the best way to phrase it. People have indeed tried on both sides.
I can't help but feel that the whole situation has hit a sort of steady state where each side focuses more the on arguments of the other rather than any serious pursuit of new information. (And I cheerfully exempt you and Keith here, as your own book was not intended to answer the question and instead presented an overview of the whole sordid mess to date.)
There could of course be scads of serious research and testing going on that I am unaware of. I sincerely hope there is.
I didn't much care for Harris's method of expression, but he did do quite a lot to damage the early arguments put forth in regards to the diary. Particularly by demolishing the use of the faulty MacDougall transcript to try and pass the will as a forgery which pushed the defense of the diaries handwriting into the realms of fantasy. (MPD! Drugs!)
And he did provide us with the chloracetamiade angle which when tested for was: Found by AFI, and Found and NOT Found in 2 successive tests by Leeds. 2 to 3 isn't conclusive, but it certainly is interesting.
Best regards,
John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1744
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
I would hardly call all the diary and watch information produced and available in the Dissertations section of this site "nowhere."
Unless Caroline means only that Melvin never finally proved who did it.
On the other hand, a full twelve years along, her once again hinted at secret squirrel investigation has so far produced...
Well, I'm too polite to say it.
--John (wondering how much the book will cost)
PS: Hi John H. We crossed posted. Well said.
(Message edited by omlor on September 28, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Hi John,
...rather than any serious pursuit of new information. (And I cheerfully exempt you and Keith here, as your own book was not intended to answer the question and instead presented an overview of the whole sordid mess to date.)
Much appreciated, but you have no need to exempt me and Keith (the 2003 book wasn't everything, by a long chalk), and your sincere hopes of a serious pursuit of new information are being fulfilled as we speak.
What doesn't sink in with certain people is the fact that if there were shady goings-on back in the early 1990s involving people still alive today, the last thing we are going to do is put the whole pursuit at risk just to satisfy their phoney curiosity prematurely - I say phoney because they already think they 'know' the nature of what there is to uncover.
And he did provide us with the chloracetamiade angle which when tested for was: Found by AFI, and Found and NOT Found in 2 successive tests by Leeds. 2 to 3 isn't conclusive, but it certainly is interesting.
But to be fair, Leeds suspected their 'find' wasn't reliable, and the second test supported their doubts. If anyone wants to claim that the first test was reliable, contrary to what Leeds themselves concluded, they should explain why it wasn't repeated.
If neither of the positive results was reliable (and you certainly don't know that they were), 0 to 3 would be equally interesting, but for different reasons.
Love,
Caz
X
PS And no one is wondering about book costs either - that's phoney too. They can speed read 'em in the shop and leave 'em there, and think they know it all.
(Message edited by caz on September 30, 2005) |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Caz,
Well I can't comment on anything going on that I am unaware of, but I'll certainly hope that there's all sorts of serious investigating going on. I'll be happy to shake the hand of whoever wraps this up. I may even immortalize them in song. 
As far as Leeds goes, I think you got it backwards Caz. If someone wants the Leeds tests considered seriously at all then there needs to be a detailed explanation as why they felt that the first test might be wrong and why the second one should be considered correct.
And of course no one has managed to cast any serious doubt on the reliability of the AFI test without falling back on the flawed and unsupported Leeds testing. So under the circumstances calling it 2 to 1 is probably pretty generous towards Leeds, but I am a generous kind of guy :-)
I certainly agree that a 0 of 3 would have been interesting and demonstrated yet another Mike lie. But that's not where we're at right now.
Best regards,
John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Wow.
John H.,
Caz's bile was directed at me, of course. Not you.
I'm the "phoney," apparently because I keep pointing out that it's been going on 13 years now and the secret-squirrel investigation we keep hearing about has produced nothing in the way of reviewable results, not even the sketch of some sort of old-hoax theory, let alone any new information concerning a modern hoax theory.
And of course, Caz is playing a card that can't lose. She can keep invoking something none of us but her know anything about and assuring us the matter is being thoroughly investigated and none of us can ever challenge her because neither she nor anyone else will tell us any specifics that would in any way demonstrate whether the matter was being thoroughly investigated or not. It's the perfect situation. There's no response possible (except to count the days and months and weeks and years).
Of course, if there was such a secret investigation that was getting at things watch and diary related, since no one here but her is able to say anything about it or has any way of knowing what it's doing or whether it is even taking place, there really isn't much point in mentioning it here (since as far as we are able to know she might just as well be making it all up as telling us the truth and we'd be none the wiser).
And yet she does (mention it here, I mean). Repeatedly.
Also, it is not at all clear how offering us simple details about this so-called "investigation" (like who is doing it, who is paying for it, how long it's been going on, are there labs involved, are the owners of the artefacts involved, etc.) puts anything "at risk."
And, finally, I wasn't wondering about the cost of the book because I was going to buy it -- I was wondering because I am always interested to see how much more money can be made off this thing and how many more books can be sold because of it.
I guess that's just the sort of thing my being "phoney" makes me wonder.
Glad to see the site's rules about such childish label-throwing are no longer in force,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
John O
Yes indeed.
I can't think Keith Skinner can be very pleased with Mrs Morris, when the whole thing needs to be kept secret so as to avoid putting the "pursuit at risk", and here she keeps blabbing about it every time she gets the chance!
Girls who behave like that really can't expect to be told any more secrets in the future ...
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1752
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I think what you'll hear is that Keith gave Caroline permission to mention the "investigation," just not to say anything about it (thus creating the circular and pointless situation I described above). I don't know if he said anything about mentioning it over and over again. And since she can't even say exactly why knowing simple things like how long it's been going on or who is funding it or whether the artefact's owners are involved would put anything at risk, the claim that such knowledge would be damaging seems to be simply an article of faith.
I've never done too well with those.
--John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
John O
Hmm. Yes. Who's funding it has to be kept secret, doesn't it, for fear of jeopardising the secret inquiries?
Because of course, those sly scousers would never answer an incriminating question if they knew Lord Schnorbitz was funding the investigation, whereas if they thought it was only Lady Muck, they'd be only too glad to spill the beans.
You know it makes sense ...
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher Lowe
Sergeant
Username: Clowe
Post Number: 28
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
em.. I'm not sure I am reading this right but when Caz writes 'if there were shady goings-on back in the early 1990s involving people still alive today, the last thing we are going to do is put the whole pursuit at risk just to satisfy their phoney curiosity prematurely' surely she means that if people are slandered (or libelled, internet defamation is a tad difficult) they may not be willing to cooperate. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 6:25 pm: |
|
...I didn't much care for Harris's method of expression, but he did do quite a lot to damage the early arguments put forth in regards to the diary..." Johnny O from above.
May I be so bold as to add to what my expatriate Pennsylvanian has said above....
Its a shame Mr. Harris, a renowned hoax-buster, devoted so much time working round the clock against the Maybrick saga....and not in investigating,like a good old hoax buster should,the claims that Stephenson, the other suspect, in The True Face of JTR was...
Arrested for complicity in anything relative to the WM.
Earned any sort of degree whatsoever.
Had some sort of bolthole [ since his admission to the Hospital was bogus in all likelihood,why the extra risk of a bolthole ? ]
or killed his wife ?
Nina Thomas,from thousands of miles away,with her acquisition of RDS' wife's death certificate....and little old lovable me,from initial inquiries made at Islington Cemetery,which spurred on the inevitable locating of RDS grave by another party...have done what Harris didn't accomplish,despite RDS being "his" suspect up until his untimely death.
Ms. Cameron's idea of a hoax being foisted on Ripperology isn't too far fetched. In fact,who better than a Ripperologist to do the hoistin' and foistin' of a shady suspect?
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
How
It's a sad truth, isn't it, that Ripper authors have often shown great perspicacity in debunking the theories put forward by their predecessors - only to come up with theories of their own that would surely collapse under similar scrutiny.
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 7:31 am: |
|
Chris:
Yes sir,and in particular the party in question in my post above.
Here's an example: Stewart Evans doesn't believe in the GSG as being much of a clue. He may offer his opinions as to why he doesn't publicly. He didn't use 1/3rd of his book on Tumblety to "attack" the GSG. I don't think he would have spent any more effort on something with more earthshattering potential,such as the Maybrick Diary in his book if he had been asked.
But in the case of Stephenson,Mr.Harris did just that and for some reason, I don't know...maybe I'm reading into it...maybe I'm wrong...but it seems that it would have been time better spent on not using so much of True Face on the Maybrick saga.
Of course, Mr.Harris'es opinions on the Maybrick affair would be worthwhile reading....of that there is no question,objection,or criticism. However,that body of work's appearance might have been better off in a separate volume.
Here's a suspect [ Stephenson ] who's candidacy appears [ and this is just my opinion ] to be assisted by the absolute trashing of another candidate in the same book. There aren't any suspect-based books that do this. I'm not being critical of either Maybrick or RDS' candidacy here, but passing along an observation,after setting the Guinness Book record of reading True Face as many times as I have....and I still believe,despite the appearance of a flip-flop here, that RDS really needs to be checked into further.
Of course,you will find opinions by suspect-based authors in their books, but none to the extent that True Face tries to wallop another.
My suspicious mind tells me,Chris,that perhaps there exists some data that RDS researchers, prior to the last year or so, are aware of and won't "share" or divulge that make RDS a little more unsupportable. Maybe this is why the claims [ the four I listed above ] would have continued to remain uncontested... Thats basically what the Stephenson threads [ for an example ] are all about. By not just accepting the prior pro-RDS claims and also, not merely brushing RDS off as a suspect based on legitimate criticisms, this suspect is under better scrutinization than previously done.
There's no problem with someone dismissing another theory,while clinging to their own. We all do that from time to time.
But the juxtaposition of the appendices in True Face of one suspect's culpability...and a shakey one to most...to another's potential candidacy....
and the other's being the worst thing since global warming...well...I'll just leave it at that.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1753
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Hi Howard,
I think the quote you attribute to me above was actually written by John Hacker. But that's OK. I agree with it.
Just for the record,
--John |
Spiro
Police Constable
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Deborah Cameron is also the author of "That’s Entertainment?: Jack the Ripper and the Selling of Sexual Violence" in Jill Radford and Diana Russell (ed), Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing. New York: Twayne Publishers. 1992
A discrediting ploy? |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Hey ho
As far as investigators/authors getting to the bottom of the mess... They sure haven't. Outside of Harris, few have really tried.
Risking a plague of frogs or rivers of blood at the mention of the names but to be fair Feldman and Harrison did have a go as well even if the bottom they were looking at was a different one than others.
I do enjoy the "murky pit" analogy as it is just like the Oak Island Money Pit which also sucked up a lot of time and effort, appeared to be a clever hoax and yet defied explanation.
Mr P. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
I'm scared now.......Why?
I came to this site because it SEEMED to be a pooling of like minds all trying to find out who the Whitechapel killer was.
From reading this thread it would seem it is more a case of who can make the most money...thats sad.
What I've never understood about this diary is why people just cant let it stand for what it IS. Lets be honest here just for a second,the document contains NOTHING that would ever prove James Maybrick was the Whitechapel killer simply because it contains NOTHING that was not in a police report or a newspaper.
Why is it any different than the hundreds of JTR letters? It's not really any different at all is it.If ONE person believes it real then....its real.How many times has Mr Knights masonic theory been shown to be utterly without substance and yet how many people still believe it?
How many folks still believe in Piltdown Man?
How many folks believe pyramids were built by aliens?
To prove,beyond ALL reasonable doubt that the diary & watch are fakes then you would have to prove that they were made before Robert Anderson closed those files,before all the information contained within was open to ANY member of the public.
For me, the person who wrote it proved it's a fake with the error about Mary Kellys breasts. Harrison tries to explain it away but it just does not wash for me. As for it being written to discredit Ripperology - no,simply because it contains nothing that researchers did not already know.
At the end of the day,all that matters,is that we do our best to allow the victims to finally rest in peace. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Hello John H.
Found by AFI, and Found and NOT Found in 2 successive tests by Leeds. 2 to 3 isn't conclusive, but it certainly is interesting
For chemists, it can be argued that not finding something (especially when the something is contained in a variety of things like hand cream, cosmetics, face cream, moisturisers etc.) is more,..... this is tricky to say but here goes (in the context of the type of analysis we are discussing):
Not finding something is better evidence of abscence than finding something is evidence of presence.
As "evidence" goes, the negative result from Leeds (who had already demonstrated that their technique could find something indicative of chloroacetamide in the same way thats all AFI could really say from a chemists points of view) is stronger evidence to me that it was not there than the result from AFI is evidence that it (actually something that gave a similar response but may not have been chloroacetamide) was there.
Having demonstrated detection capacity (Leeds), there are very few situations/conditions that could interfere to produce a "false negative" result than there are situations/conditions where a "false positive" could be produced.
For these reasons, I personally am disinclined to place an equal weighting on the three results mentioned.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Hi ho
It could be argued that the vitriol on these boards over the years (and we're all guilty to some extent) has possibly done much to keep the two articles out of the hands of people who may be able to tease some extra information out of them one way or the other.
Its a pity that the opinions expressed and held in the early days tended to be so vehement...otherwise we may have been further down the pit (if not at the bottom) already.
Resurrecting my kaftan and love beads
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
Howdy John Hacker
Veering slightly off thread here but we all do it occassionally.....
Not that I am defending graphology (Im not a huge believer) but is it any less valid to interpret, lets say, mental state or "personality" from handwriting than it is to interpret these two from, for example, Rorschach images or, in cases of suspected child abuse for example, drawings or doodlings? And again, I would hate to be condemned as one thing or t'other on the basis of my handwriting.
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
Hi ho
It could be argued that the vitriol on these boards over the years (and we're all guilty to some extent) has possibly done much to keep the two articles out of the hands of people who may be able to tease some extra information out of them one way or the other.
Its a pity that the opinions expressed and held in the early days tended to be so vehement...otherwise we may have been further down the pit (if not at the bottom) already.
Resurrecting my kaftan and love beads
Mr P |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1755
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Lars,
Perhaps. But in the end those who have the articles in their hands will have to take responsibility for what does and does not happen in terms of scientific investigation.
The vehemence of expressed opinions either past or present will not in any way relieve them of this ultimate responsibility to the truth.
At least not in my mind.
--John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Steve,
"For me, the person who wrote it proved it's a fake with the error about Mary Kellys breasts. Harrison tries to explain it away but it just does not wash for me. "
You're not the only one. The arguments put forth to excuse that error certainly strain credulity.
Mr. Poster,
"Not finding something is better evidence of abscence than finding something is evidence of presence."
Err... I'm sorry mate, but on the surface that sounds just plain silly. Could you explain your reasoning?
Are you suggesting that the AFI test found something else? And if so, what would it have been? They tested the sample, found the chloroacetamide peak, added more chloroacetamide, the peak got higher.
I can understand how something could be missed much more easily than I can come up with a way that you're going to find something that's not there.
"For these reasons, I personally am disinclined to place an equal weighting on the three results mentioned."
I quite agree here. AFI's work is documented. Their methodology is clear, and they verified their findings. Their documented procedure should preclude any sort of contamination from the control.
The tests that Leeds yielded inconsistent results. They clearly screwed up at least one of the tests, and the explanation of "contamination by the control" is not supported by any details that would allow us determine if that claim should be taken seriously. But then as far as I know, not even the test results and methodology have been made public.
When looking at the tests run we have: a documented test set that confirmed the findings, and an undocumented test set that yielded to different results that relies on a large "Just is" factor to accept.
So I do agree. It's impossible to place an equal weighting on the three results. I cannot seriously regard the Leeds results as reliable based on the information we have today. I must believe that if AFI didn't find chloroacetamide they certainly found it's twin brother.
If more information is ever made available, I will happily take it into account, but for now we have what we have.
"It could be argued that the vitriol on these boards over the years (and we're all guilty to some extent) has possibly done much to keep the two articles out of the hands of people who may be able to tease some extra information out of them one way or the other. "
I'm sure that's contributed to it, and I have certainly done my part in pouring fuel on the fire. (Although I've mellowed somewhat since my firebrand days and try very hard to keep the discourse civil. We had a real good run there on the diary boards for a while a couple of years ago.)
Unfortunately only one "side" is in a position to actually go ahead and get the testing done. Several overtures have been made by various parties to try and facilitate this, yet they all seem to fall apart or never come about.
In the end, the responsibility falls on Robert Smith. If he wants to work to try and establish the truth about the document, he can make it happen. If he wants it tested, it will be tested.
As far as graphology goes, IMO it's just bunk. Sorry.
The Rorschach test is falling out of favor of late, but at least both it and "doodlings" require some form of creative work on the part of the patient which might give a legitimate clue to their state of mind.
However handwriting is a learned behavior that is shaped both by the teaching, personal idiosyncrosies, and physical structure of the hand of the writer. The "graphologist" is the patient trying to read meaning into the ink blots here. They might as well try to read personality from how they brush their teeth. While graphology might give some insight into their state of of the graphologist, it's not giving us insight into the writer.
Best regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Mr Poster
As "evidence" goes, the negative result from Leeds (who had already demonstrated that their technique could find something indicative of chloroacetamide in the same way thats all AFI could really say from a chemists points of view) is stronger evidence to me that it was not there than the result from AFI is evidence that it (actually something that gave a similar response but may not have been chloroacetamide) was there.
Well, either detecting something or not detecting something could be the result of flawed experimental design. Obviously, the point is to design the experiment well enough to get the right result.
In a nutshell, AFI used proper control procedures that would have detected contamination, and did proper calibration to determine the response of their apparatus to a known concentration of chloroacetamide.
Leeds, evidently didn't have sufficient safeguards against contamination, judging by their own conclusion that this was what muct have caused their positive results. And according to Voller, who had read their report, "calibration of the instrument appears to have been very cursory and its ability to detect tiny traces of chloracetamide assumed rather than properly established."
So, like John H, I absolutely agree that it would be a mistake to give the three results equal weighting. In fact, there would be quite a lot to be said for just letting the two conflicting results from Leeds cancel each other out.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
So all we need now is for someone to provide Robert Smith with pre-1992 formula Diamine, or equivalent, and someone to arrange a chemical comparison between that and ink taken directly from the diary.
The screw-up, as far as I can see, in testing the theory that Mike told the truth about where the diary ink was obtained, was in simply testing the ink dots (that had been transported from America in gelatine - a substance which, according to a surprised Leeds University, 'has an astonishing ability to absorb and interact with anything it contacts') for the presence of a chemical that makes up 0.26% of liquid pre-1992 Diamine (and a much greater percentage when the water that makes up 92.08% has evaporated).
If Mike told the truth, it should - in theory - be possible to confirm that the diary ink has chloroacetamide in exactly the same proportion as dried Diamine (and that Leeds, for some obscure reason, lost their initial ability to detect the chemical).
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 7:37 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
We've been through all this before, ad nauseam.
The ink can be tested for chloroacetamide tomorrow, if anyone really wants to know whether there is chloroacetamide in it, and if Robert Smith agrees.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on October 07, 2005) |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
Caz,
"So all we need now is for someone to provide Robert Smith with pre-1992 formula Diamine, or equivalent, and someone to arrange a chemical comparison between that and ink taken directly from the diary."
As I've said numerous times, it would prove nothing at this late stage of the game. The ink in the diary has been on the paper for over 10 years now. It couldn't possibly match an out of the bottle specimen of the same ink even if a sample could be found.
What needs to happen if for Robert to arrange for comprehensive testing if he is actually serious about pursuing it. It really is that simple. It may or may not settle the matter definetively, but we'd certainly know more than we do today and it would go a long way toward mitigating the suspicion and accusations that have surrounded the diary debate for years now.
Best regards,
John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1761
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
"What needs to happen is for Robert to arrange for comprehensive testing if he is actually serious about pursuing it. It really is that simple. It may or may not settle the matter definitively, but we'd certainly know more than we do today and it would go a long way toward mitigating the suspicion and accusations that have surrounded the diary debate for years now."
Just thought that was worth repeating.
Thanks,
-- John (the other one) |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Hi Howie:
" Dear old lovable me"
This Islington thing is of course rubbish with capital letters. It is well known that RDS died at a pupper's grave-yard in North London Highgate in Hamstead cemetery in 1916. RDS went into a poor house for 2 years before he died.
And the thing about the Maybrick story included in Melvin's book The True Face, was because: writing a separate essay on the Maybrick saga alone, was not accepted by the publisher for the general public, so, as the True Face had already been given the O.K. to be printed, Melvin sort of included it there, as there were so many people asking him the same questions over and over again.
Esta claro ? Canta claro?
Your ex-girlfriend
--Maria
PD. I'm risking my neck that the other women in your life will roast me !
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Maria...
" It is well known that RDS died at a pauper's grave-yard in North London Highgate in Hamstead cemetery in 1916."
If you are referring to Stephenson's whereabouts being known prior to Ivor Edwards going to Islington Cemetery, not the cemetery you have just mentioned, and being escorted to the grave [ he is buried underneath another gentleman at a depth of 11 feet ], then that is news to everyone,my dear...
Are you inferring that Ivor was NOT the first to locate this man's grave and that perhaps Mr. Harris knew already?
Are you claiming that RDS is NOT buried in Islington Cemetery?
Hey...forget these other babes...we're still on all systems go,woman.
Please elaborate a little further,Maria...I'm interested in this "well-known" statement you made about RDS NOT being in Islington.
If possible,please pass along my email address to Mrs. Harris and please tell her I sincerely would like to ask her only a couple of questions,which won't be much of a burden,I assure you...the address is donston1888@aol.com
I appreciate it,Maria....
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 52
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Hi Howard:
Where you die is not necessarily where you are buried. Donston died and his death was recorded at Islington but he was buried at St Pancras Cemetery High Road, East Finchley. The information about Donston's DEATH and where he died came before Melvin Harris died. The information about Donston's PLACE OF BURIAL came only some 3 weeks after Melvin died.
I'll pass on your message about the two questions.
Maria.
(Message edited by maria on October 09, 2005)
(Message edited by maria on October 09, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
A thousand pardons,Maria. He was buried in St.Pancras...My mistake. He died on October 9,1916...I thought that this cemetery was considered Islington Cemetery,not paying attention to the fact that there are other cemeteries in the area. In fact,Ivor had had someone note that previously on the boards. here is an excerpt from that post:
"I have located D'Onston's grave he is buried in a private plot
in the cemetery at High Road, East Finchley, London.."
Thanks for setting me straight on that. Here all along I had assumed incorrectly that I was barking up the right tree with my pestering the Islington Cemetery and then Ivor following through and...oh well...at least we have that straightened out.. Its good that you straightened that out.
Any idea as to how the discovery of RDS' St Pancras burial came about ? Considering it came so shortly before Mr. Harris' death, is it possible he had something to do with the disclosure ? Because he himself had said in True Face that there was no record of him after the Patristic Gospels release [ or around that period of time...]. Just wondering aloud here...
Thanks again for your help,Maria....
(Message edited by howard on October 09, 2005)
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 53
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Dear Howie:
No sweety, no mistake from your part at all. It does turns out that Islington Cemetery, is part of the St. Pancras cemetery. It is just known as St. Pancras cemetery. What happened was that the Old St. Pancras cemetery which is where the railway station bomb exploded in July, ran out of space and bought land --In North London-- beside the Islington cemetery, which comes under Camden County council. Howie, let's just say is the same dog with a different collar  and we are both right. I got confused too and that is why Islington didn't ring a bell.
The truth is that trying to find a grave in London is very tricky, because they have changed the bounderies, over the years so, from one century to the next, you have to be really hot, in boundary changes to succeed in finding where the hell anything is.
Having said that. Ivor Edwards got on the trail of the right cemetery once my husband Peter found 3 different censuses in the 1881-1891-1901
When Peter found Donston living in Islington, all that had to be done, was to look in those cemeteries in that Islington area, where he could have died, and Ivor did very well in finding the grave eventually.
Yes, Melvin was very grateful to Peter in having succeeded in finding exactly where Donston was living in London. One of the reasons why Melvin couldn't find this particular information was because the censuses mentioned above, were not public records, when Melvin wrote his book.
These censuses became available to the public only 3 years ago.
It is very late here Howie, I have passed your message to Maureen and she is deliverately not in the internet, so if you wish to ask your questions through me, at my e-mail address it would be my pleasure to convey them to her.
Have a good Sunday,
--Maria |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 7:56 pm: |
|
WELL, WELL, WELL....So Peter Birchwood,your hubby and my adversary en cosas amor, was very instrumental in the location of RDS,huh? Hmmm...I don't remember his contribution being mentioned at all...Isn't that somethin' sweetie ?
WELL, WELL, WELL...Almost 20 months and not even a nod of the noggin for old Pete. Seems like an oversight doesn't it? Wonder if that fact will ever surface anywhere but here at Casebook? I gotta gut feeling it won't ! Call it standard operating procedure....
You can't imagine how you made my day,mamasita...
Geez...you would think that the reason he was found would find Peter honored on his end,wouldn't you,amorsita ?
...and I will send you a couple of questions for Mrs. Harris by tomorrow...Thanks for your kind gesture,Maria.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 54
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Howie:
Stop being jealous, it doesn't suit you.
Yes, Peter wrote on the boards that Ivor was saying " I CAN'T FIND IT " " I CAN'T FIND IT "
MEANING THE CENSUS. Then when Peter looked for it, there it was. Well, if they don't want to give credit where credit is due, I'm sorry to hear it. We no longer do searches for free these days, maybe if we had charged for it, no-one from that ungrateful camp would have forgotten about it.
And stop calling me mamacita, it is rude in the extreme and I'm very offended.
And yes, if you see on some of Stewart Evans's books and other well known authors, you will see that he is mentioned for his contributions there as well. If you do not believe me, please look it up in our web-site or look it up yourself.
You didn't even get the name of the cemetery right, you said: Islington 3 TIMES ! I was being generous to you when you conceded defeat.
Those are TWO DIFFERENT cemeteries next to each other, if you had gone to your ISLINGTON CEMETERY as you were so pedantic to state 3 TIMES. A year later or two, I can assure you, you would still be looking for Donston's grave. No, I shouldn't have been generous to you, I should have asked you to bend on your knees for forgiveness So in case you didn't get it. D'Onston's grave is in: ST. PANCRAS CEMETERY on the High Road, East Finchley. NOT Islington cemetery. He died at Islington Infirmary, Highgate Hill, Islington.
Get it ? Not that it really matters to me if it had been in China.
Due to your bad treatment towards me on these boards, I'm not passing any more questions to Maureen, see if I care.
I'm not your amorcito either and never will be.
we are finished.
I'm slamming the door behind me, as I leave here.
--Maria
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 4:30 am: |
|
hello John Hacker
"Not finding something is better evidence of abscence than finding something is evidence of presence."
This is very easy. Gas chromatography is prone to Type I errors or "false positives". That fact among other reasons that I have listed on other threads is why the technique on its own cannot (with conventional detectors) be said to be able to positively identify unknowns, in this case chloroacetamide. It can of course identify and quantify primary components of limited mixtures such as may be produced in a factory or whatever.
The number of factors that can produce TYpe I errors is therefore large.
The number of factors that produce Type II errors (false negatives) is much much smaller. This fact means that if something is not found then the number of factors that could have contributed to it being mistakenly "not found" (Type II) are much less than the number that could have contributed to it being mistakenly found (Type I) therfore, the liklihood of a Type II in the Leeds case is much less than a Type I in the case of it having been found by any other lab (but of course, no lab on the planet can say on the basis of GC alone that chloroacetamide was present: thats just a scientific fact).
So my statement above does actually make sense from a chemistry point of view.
Hello Chris P.
Well, either detecting something or not detecting something could be the result of flawed experimental design. Obviously, the point is to design the experiment well enough to get the right result.
In a nutshell, AFI used proper control procedures that would have detected contamination, and did proper calibration to determine the response of their apparatus to a known concentration of chloroacetamide.
Leeds, evidently didn't have sufficient safeguards against contamination, judging by their own conclusion that this was what muct have caused their positive results. And according to Voller, who had read their report, "calibration of the instrument appears to have been very cursory and its ability to detect tiny traces of chloracetamide assumed rather than properly established."
This analysis was not an experiment. By definition, both labs would have only performed "experiment" in relation to if the compound could theroetically produce a signal under the conditions employed (running a standrad). Running the sample on the GC is an analysis at that point not an experiment. The analysis should have been designed right to get the right result. But of course as I have pointed out many times before, GC alone cannot produce a result in this case...it just cannot. Some other professor also gave that same conclusion to Caroline Anne Morris and it is the only right conclusion. But and here we go again, while GC cannot give a definite positive result for a compound it can be argued that it can prove its abscence quite conclusively......back to the Leeds test.
I have gobe through all the AFI documents that appear on this website and have presented some points on another thread. I will not repeat them as they are easy to find.
I can ride a bike implies I have a good procedure.
That does not mean that by riding the bike (adopting a good procedure) I will never crash (produce a bad result).
If anyone wants to see an analysis of the AFI results just find the other thread as Im not typing it out again.
But one final statement again :" GC alone cannot give the result that was being looked for". Look at the AFI chromatograms to see why. Melvin got what he paid for. Its a pity he mistook that for what he was hoping for. On a hundred different levels he was just wrong to assume chloracetamide presence using the results he had to hand. Thats not even an opinion, its a scientific fact.
Mr P.
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
Sorry for the double post
The problem is not why Leeds reported contamination but why AFI didnt. They have a signal in the region of interest on a blank sample which is visible in their chromatograms. There should be no (I repeat NO) signal on the blank anywhere near where the analytical signal is expected especially when analysing the fabled "tiny traces" we are talking about (which in actuality arent tiny traces at all given the usual amounts of chloroacetamide that would be expected according the data provided by Voller).
And we all seem to have forgotten the magical balnace AFI were using.
Greetings
mr P. (First name Lars, second name 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.
|
|
|
|
