|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:16 pm: | 
|
An ink test might well prove something is a fake, but it can't prove it's genuine. If it could, then we really ought to put some of Mark Hoffman's forgeries back into circulation. Heck, genuine Victorian ink in a powdered form is still available. That's why document examiners also rely on other means (handwriting, text, etc.) , and put so much emphasis on provenance. From experience, they know tests can be beat. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1786
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
I agree - no ink test could ever prove the diary genuine, ie that Maybrick was the ripper and wrote the diary.
As I've tried to point out on a number of occasions, the only way a new ink test is going to help is if the ink is modern, and if this new test can expose it as modern.
It will be no earthly good to us if there is nothing 'wrong' with the ink, whether it's because your modern hoaxer was smart enough not to use a modern ink like Diamine, or whether it's because the diary is as old as Alec Voller believed it to be.
The diary is a relatively unimportant document. By that I mean that nothing bad is going to happen if document examiners and other types of expert hold their fire indefinitely regarding the alleged textual 'problems', the dodgy provenance, and even the handwriting.
It would be premature IMHO, for anyone to damn the diary on the provenance and owner's character alone, while the true provenance remains a total mystery to them. None of the provenance stories given us by the Barretts can be trusted or verified. Throw them all out on that basis and then - without relying on the text, and certainly not on any of the scientific evidence - you are left with nothing to support your belief that the diary's life began with Mike sometime after 1987.
It is abundantly clear from all the posts on these boards over the years, written by modern hoax believers, that they have needed every little scrap of evidence they could dig up and make something of (including non-evidence like Mrs Hammersmith, and the fluorescent marks which, as far as Dr Platt is concerned, are not in any way indicative of the diary's age), and they are still looking for more.
It just doesn't add up to the quick and easy damnation you speak of.
Love,
Caz
X |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 2:09 am: |
|
Hello
Surely a problem is that Melvin H. and others have propounded at length that if there is chloroecetamide in the ink, then its modern.
If there isnt, then to say that the forger got his hands on old ink is about as likely as a small ink shop having used chloroacetamide some time in the 1880's?
Mr >Poster
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Hello Caz, Mr.P, Sir Bob and RJ
For once I'm in the strange position of agreeing with all of you....Yo Maybrick land first.
And I should piont out to RJ that I did state earlier on in my story: The truth, which may surprise people, is that it is almost impossible.
(Almost of course but thats not the same as impossible...but then time, money and resorces can solve alot of things.)
And as Sir Bob points out Hoffman actually ran paper trails to prove provinance of his forgeries and the truth is that knowbody actually knows how many of Hoffmans creations are still in circulation. Proving whether something is Real or Fake is as you all seem to be coming to the conclusion...Very Difficult indeed.
And as the late Douglas Adams pionted out getting answers to test results are useless (42) unless you know what questions you are asking and how you interpret those answers.
And although RJ states: Every book on the subject is careful to point out that scientific tests can never 'authenticate' a document.
I cant find any books writen that tell you how to date old documents and manuscripts. Indeed I'd go as far as to say there are none, which is one of our biggest problems...there are no rules or guide lines each documents throws up differant problems and differant solutions may be required on individual documents.
Similarly there are no books writen listing every type of ink its constituants or when and where it was produced.
All we can do is look for holes in the document, a modern contaminant, a smoking gun, or proof that Maybrick was out of the country or that Barrett purchased the diary.
At the moment we have no proof either way. I'm still convinced that scientific analysis is our best chance of dating the diary. But knowing which questions we ask to get a diffinative answer may not be so easy.
Even if we prove teh diary ink does or does not contain Chlorecitimide....what does this actually tell us?
At least Mr P is trying to find solutions to the problem which must be aplauded.
Anyway I'll quit why I'm ahead agreeing with everyone for once.
Many thank for your reply's
Jeff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Hi Mr Poster, Jeff,
Yeah, I'm still a bit confused about this whole chloroacetamide issue.
Obviously, it would have been all over back in 1994 if AFI had been able to do a straight (and repeatable) chemical-for-chemical comparison between pre-1992 Diamine and the diary ink - and come up with a good match.
I'm still not sure whether this would have been possible and, if so, how much more expensive it would have been for Melvin than the test for chloroacetamide, which convinced him and some of his supporters, but apparently shouldn't have done.
What if the diary ink contains chloroacetamide, but isn't Diamine? Could the proportion of this preservative in the dried ink help to identify another commercially produced ink of recent years?
And, as you ask, Jeff, what if it doesn't actually contain any of the chemical, as Leeds concluded? What other chemicals could be looked for, which would define the ink as post-1888?
There was a documentary the other night on the MMR controversy, and the theory that this triple vaccination could cause autism. One of the tests involved looking for the measles virus in children with autism who had had the MMR jab.
The first test found traces of the virus in a significant proportion of the sample group, supporting the theory that three vaccines in one go are too much for some children's bodies to cope with.
But it was explained that the possibility for contamination by external traces of the measles virus was very high, and further tests proved negative (in all cases examined, I believe).
In conclusion, it appears that there is no hard evidence that MMR causes autism. The condition tends to manifest itself at around the same age as the jab is routinely given anyway. And rising rates of autism across the world can be put down to improved diagnosis. In Japan, where they stopped giving the MMR jab as a precaution, the rate has continued to rise in line with other countries where the advice has been to carry on.
In Denmark, they looked at a large sample of children, and found that the incidence of autism was almost exactly the same whether or not the MMR jab was given, erring on the side of a slightly higher incidence among those not given it (although the difference was not statistically significant).
It is just another example of science not having enough answers, and risking errors in the rush to see links that may not actually be there.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Hi Caz
I've discussed this problem with Paul Begg at length. He is worried about there being to few records of what was put in what type of ink, when and where.
If the ink is a modern dimine manuscript ink it should be easy enough to detect but if its older or the hoaxer managed to find Victorian ink in powder form......then I'm afraid were pi**ing in the wind.
As RJ pionted out we can only look for holes and if there not there it proves nothing either way.
The only thing that seems strange is whether Barrett would have gone to such lengths to get period ink. Geting an original Diary makes sense but no one had ever tested ink in such hoax's before...its unlikely the hoaxer even considered the ink fitting the period...why should he?
I'm still convinced that the ink holds the answer somewhere but its not going to be easy.
I'm currently trying to talk to ink manufactures...anyone know if there is a book on ink manufacture?
Have a good weekend
Jeff |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 429
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
"the hoaxer managed to find Victorian ink in powder form......then I'm afraid were pi**ing in the wind. "
A question for you, Jeff. If you're taking Victorian era ink, and mixing it with present day British water, wouldn't there be things like chlorine and/or flouride as potential contaminants?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Andy Arnold
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Jeff,
You gave a very good and credible account of why hoaxes are important in a social and historical context. Why a hoax can be a powerful tool of propaganda and how a hoax can influence people. indeed there are many people on this forum who are influenced. But what you didn't come up with is any evidence to suggest why this diary is NOT a hoax. And my point is if it IS a hoax i doin't want to waste any more time discussing it. It doesn't matter who wrote it as long as the real JTR didn't.
Andy |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 8:09 am: |
|
Hi Sir Bob
And yes contaminates should be in the ink. I dont think if Barrett created the Diary he would have given much thought to the potencial of it being tested for such things.
However you must bear in mind what John Omlar pointed out: 'That if Barrett bought powder victorian ink he could have bought a bottle of Evian water.'
I argued at length about this because I didnt think someone like Barrett would have bought bottle water.
Having given it some thought however I know my mother used to keep distilled water for her steam Iron in the early 90's and its something you'd use to top up your car battery.
You have to except the possibility, however unlikely, that Barrett could have bought powdered ink and mixed it with someting that will show no contaminants.
Now do you see the delema?
If we test for chlorocetimide and its negative what does this actually prove?
If Barrett created the Diary logic dictates that he purchased Modern diamine manuscript ink and watered it down with the nearest available source IE the tap. But he could have bought Victorian Powder and used distilled water..it is a possibility.
I just want to figure a way of conclusively dating the diary without there being room for doubt.
Jeff
Hi Andy...I think i explained my interest in documents like the Maybrick Diary. What all of these documents have in common....apart from the Protocols of Zion which people still beleive is true even though it is a forgery based on a work of fiction. Is that no body has as yet proved that they are Hoax's.
So I turn your question back at you. Can you prove the Maybrick Diary is a Hoax?...Retorical......
No you can NOT. Thats what this whole debate is about......the current stale-mate of opinion.
Its not about what we beleive but the facts and what we can prove.
The fact is that Maybrick as a suspect is unique... in that....if someone proves the Diary is Reel....(John Omlar has fit and rings for nurse attension.) then the case is solved. No other suspect offers this possibility.
Until someone can prove the diary is a fake then people will be interested because its a great yarn...one of the best along side the other romantic candidates: Tumbelty, Druit, and Donston.
Who realy wants a more credible candidate like Kazminsky, Ostrog or a common street Joe?
The truth is that all the suspects are a wild stab in the dark.....sorry for the week punch line..
And lets face it Mike Barrett is another facinating character in the history of hoax documents. Did he? Didn't he?
I dont know but until someone can prove either way I figure its a great story that needs to be told.
Jeff |
Andy Arnold
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Whatever. I still reckon it's a hoax. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Hello Andy
It doesn't matter who wrote it as long as the real JTR didn't.
Well it matters about as much as finding a photo of MJK or Abberline I suppose which wont solve the case either but are handy to fill in the gaps.
Mr Poster
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hi Mr P.
Still worried about Chloricetimide results.
If they prove negative it seems to me that we only prove that we are dealing with a much more sophisticated Hoaxer than we thought.
ie your always open to the claim that Barrett could have purchased Victorian Ink (what ever that is) mixed it with distiled water and layed it on the memorabilia Album in diluted thin appearance.
It seems alot of money to spend getting results cross refed three times when all you prove is that the Hoaxer used an original ink.
As I've said before I dont find this very likely. Its not as though such documents had ever been checked for such things before.
But if you use the logic that the Hoaxer could possibly have stumbled accross 'tin match box emtie' then you have to assume that Barrett could have used something other than tap water or dimine manuscript ink.
If we know every constituant part of the ink
What does it actually tell us?
Rather worried that we could just be going in circles.
Jeff
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Hello Jeff Leahy
I agree for the most part. If no chloroacetamide was found, I agree its not conclusive.
One option is to ask Diamine would they kindly donate one of their packets of powdered Victorian ink to see if that differs markedly from the ink in the diary. Somehow though, I think if MB or someone had tracked down one of these sachets of ink , somebody would have remembered him or his queries. I doubt such sachets are sold in the shops.
Reagrding the number of times a test should be repeated.
I agree 3 is expensive. But getting one or two leaves you in exactly the same position as we stand with the two we have got. Because if one or two are inconclusive, they will be lumped in with the AFI/Leeds tests and then there will be four or three inconclusive tests to chew over. Three or more could constitute a schwerpunkt so to speak or a concentration of effort that could stand alone or be conclusive and finally clear the AFI/Leeds tests out of the picture.
But I appreciate your difficulties.
Mr Poster |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
What do you mean by ...in diluted thin appearance?
Alec Voller, while examining the writing in the diary, stated:
The opacity of this is very much poorer than one would have from Diamine Manuscript ink even if it were diluted. You see dilution would simply not produce this sort of effect.
When I saw the diary, the ink didn't appear to me to be either diluted or 'thin'. But I didn't have anything to compare it with. And evidently Voller saw a marked difference between the diary ink and Diamine, even diluted Diamine.
Hi Mr Poster,
This is the trouble. No one has ever reported anyone, let alone Mike Barrett, making enquiries, doing specific research, or acquiring anything - including materials, ripper books or other information - before April 1992, that would have been required by anyone hoaxing this thing in modern times (if we don't count the little 1891 diary Mike ordered, which was about as 'required' as a chocolate teapot).
I think we would need Voller's help to obtain pre-1992 Diamine for comparison purposes, and he may be able to supply powdered Victorian ink too.
And it would also help if Voller could take another look at the diary ink ten years later, and comment on any changes in its appearance or his opinions since 1995.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 08, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
"Somehow though, I think if MB or someone had tracked down one of these sachets of ink , somebody would have remembered him or his queries...."
Um. I seem to recall that shortly after Mr. Barrett revealed the existance of a certain blank maroon diary (some three years after the fact) a real-life honest-to-goodness bookseller was traced and did remember a very curious purchaser named Barrett, who made the highly "unusual request" roughly six weeks before anyone laid an eye on the Maybrick diary. This man (the bookseller) was utterly unknown. He never came forward, and never would have come forward except for the fact that he was traced. It still remains one of the only independently verified actions of Barrett before he showed up in London. And a curious one at that. So forgive me, but it seems to me that no rational conclusions can be drawn from the lack of data.... there might yet be more people out there that remember Barrett....
I wonder, for instance, whether one of the older members of any of the writing groups in Liverpool might recall Barrett and give some insight into what he was up to pre-1992. A further problem is that those who are closest to those involved in the Diary investigation--even those who assert 'agnosticism'---have evidently long ago dismissed the possibility of a hoax involving either Graham or Barrett and are not actively investigating it.
But the main problem is that creating a hoax isn't strictly illegal, and unless there is a complaint filed, there is no way to investigate anything. We are entirely at the mercy of what Barrett or Graham wish to tell us.
As for Mr. Voller, I tried to secure a copy of his original inspection of the diary which still exists on cassette tape. I felt this was the first step in making an intelligent study of the current level of bronzing. Of the two people who had copies of the tape, one had no way of reproducing it, and the other was bogged-down in other work, and thus stated that getting a copy of the interview was of 'low priority.' Two months have now passed. I did, however, get the kind cooperation from Mr. Smith, who is willing to let Mr. Voller have a go at it. Since I live on the otherside of the world, and since there seems to be no pressing need, I don't have the desire to press the issue further. If someone in London still has the wish to organize the viewing, by all means go ahead without me. I suggest simply that you review my proposal, tape-record the proceedings, make sure the significant page (mentioned in the proposal) is one of those examined, and don't ask leading questions so as to taint the objectivity of the examination. Best wishes, RP |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Hi Caz
I dont beleive I've ever stated that the ink WAS diluted just that this is a possibilty that has been suggested by other posters on this thread.
My fears here are not what is probable but what is possible. And as I said its the same arguement as 'tin match box emptie' turned around and fired back.
I dont beleive that Barrett (if he was the hoaxer) would have had any thought about the ink being original or having to face tests. There had been a number of famous hoax's before the Maybrack Diary and they hadn't been tested.
Even if we take RJ's, cunning, coniving Barrett, he would have been working in a hurry and getting hold of Victorian powdered ink and a bottle of Evian water would probably be the last thing on his mind.
However it does remain a possibility. And other posters (cant remember which) have suggested that he over diluted the ink to make it look faded (sorry if I've got this wrong). indeed Barrett himself suggests he mixed the ink with sugar, even though I can find no referance to what sugar might have acheived, perhaps it just sounded good.
But I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with RJ on this one. Why would people have kept records or remember enquiries? Why would they put 2 and 2 together and contact someone saying 'I spoke to this bloke two years ago who asked about victorian ink'.
Indeed if you were a supplier of such a product it would be very specialized. You probably get hundreds of enquiries as there would not be much competition.
I'm guessing here but wouldnt it be more likely that if you did want Victorian Powder ink you'd get it by catalogue? I mean I dont know but how much demand would there be of such a product? Who would store it? It would have to be kept dry so expensive.
Would they mix with raw materials from scratch to recippi
As I've stated before I've been unable to purchase a book on the history of ink and various recipies...its not like Mrs Beaton you know.
Does such a book exist?????
Anyway Caz my main worry is that even if we prove the ink has no chlorecitimide then people will still say Barrett could have done it.....and at present it seems a possibility.
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
A further problem is that those who are closest to those involved in the Diary investigation--even those who assert 'agnosticism'---have evidently long ago dismissed the possibility of a hoax involving either Graham or Barrett and are not actively investigating it.
Do you know this because someone involved in the ongoing investigation told you this was the case? Or are you guessing? And if you are right, what do you think is being investigated then, if not the diary's whereabouts before April 1992?
We are not entirely at the mercy of what Mike or Anne tells us, unless you think they are the only people involved in the diary's creation, and have succeeded in covering their tracks at all stages of their planning and preparation.
The scrapbook and ink and research materials couldn't have fallen into their hands without anyone else being involved.
Yet eleven and a half years since the first book was published, and with most of Liverpool having heard something about the diary and watch over this length of time, not a single person has come forward with a snippet of gossip - true or false - to support the suspicions of the armchair theorists. Why is that?
Are the Barretts and the Johnsons such good eggs that no enemies have been made over the years? No jealous souls who want their own limelight, and resent Mike having all the attention, good or bad? Is no one prepared to give a juicy story to the papers, suggesting they were there when Mike became so wrapped up in his 'novel' writing project that he couldn't stop the drink from loosening his tongue at times?
Mike broke the terms of the confidentiality agreement almost immediately, because he couldn't hold his tongue on the train back to Liverpool after the publishing auction in early June 1992. How could he have held his tongue throughout the whole creative process?
I would love to hear from anyone who knew the Barretts pre-1992, and I can't wait for your proposal for a new viewing to be taken up by those whose objectivity and neutrality have not been called into question.
And I promise to accept it if Voller concludes that he made a mistake, and if he reports that the ink has been bronzing steadily since it was first examined.
But I suspect that if any new information is not what the modern hoax theorists want to hear, it won't change a blessed thing. Are my suspicions more justified than yours, perhaps?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 09, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Well, before the Maybrick Diary emerged, the forger of the Hitler Diaries had been exposed fairly swiftly and jailed for his pains. The paper was tested and found, I believe, to contain modern bleaching agents. The Mussolini Diaries turned out to have been baked in an oven to make them appear older.
A modern Maybrick hoaxer should have been well aware from the ripper books he studied (especially if he took his cue from the 1988 centenary publicity) just how sensational his work would appear, and that any obviously modern materials, or artificial ageing processes tried, would likely be exposed as such in double quick time. How naive must a hoaxer have been, to imagine that handing over a Jack the Ripper confession in the climate of the early nineties wasn't going to lead to the mother of all storms?
If no one can easily find books on old inks, and how to obtain or mix them, what makes anyone think Mike could have done it this way? And if he did, why has he never said where he got his information from, or described the process, apart from saying he added sugar?
The theory was that Mike bought and used liquid Diamine. If that theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny (and it doesn't appear to at the moment), there's a significant problem for the modern hoax believers.
The AFI test failed to nip that problem in the bud.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Caz your still missing the point, its not what is probable but what is possible.
Is it possible for Mike to have obtained ink that would fool the tests?
If the answer is yes than even if you test for chloricetimide and find none it dosnt prove a thing....old or new hoax we still have a stale mate.
And as you well know and as Barrett would have known the Hitler Diaries were exposed on hand writing so suely your most important attension to detail should have been getting that right or doing what hoffman did and creating some other provinance of Maybricks hand writing...I mean why a watch?
Interesting about the bleech contamination though I do agree that someone should have turned up some sign of something by now.
(Mr P is there anyway of doing a general sweep thought the inks composition to determin if anything is really out of place?)
Caz significant problem is not the same as proof. If were going to do any new tests we need to know exactly what we wish to acheive and demonstrate and then reproduce those results, apparently three times.
And although I agree the Hitler Diaries would have been the most well known hoax, am I not right in thinking the Maybrick diary wasn't the first Ripper Hoax?
I'm still of the opinion that as well as tests we somehow need to get back to Mike Barrett and get more infomation from the horses mouth.
Also why liquid Diamine ink, were there not other inks or imported inks available?
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Made an error.
Just a quick post to appologuise. It has been pionted out to me that Hitler Diaries were exposed by ink tests evaporation of Chloride not hand writing.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/literary/6.html?sect=21
This link should explain everything hopefully.
Thanks for pionting this out
Must fly
jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1841
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Sorry if I missed your point.
Is it possible for Mike to have obtained ink that would fool the tests?
The question should be - is it possible for anyone to have obtained ink, post-1987, for a supposedly Victorian document, that would fool the tests from 1992 onwards?
Since I don't believe for one second that Mike knows anything about the ink, more information from the horse's mouth is not going to help us identify it.
For those who believe the diary was created after the Hitler Diaries fiasco, did the hoaxer read up about it, and make strenuous efforts to avoid the same pitfalls? Or did he gaily go about his business in blissful ignorance, never concerning himself with the likelihood that his work would be scrutinised to hell and back?
Just reading again about the way the Hitler Diaries were exposed, should make people question how the diary and watch have so far both resisted all scientific attempts to ascertain if they were hoaxed recently.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 12, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1848
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Hi All,
I'm hoping that someone here will do a 'Jenni' and try to get RJ's proposal off the ground. If anyone is interested in helping, they could maybe contact Alec Voller, former chief research chemist for Diamine Ink, via Shirley Harrison.
It would also be desirable to get some of the other professionals who visually examined the diary back in the early 1990s to look at it again and record their observations.
Love,
Caz
X |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hello Jeff Leahy
Then a test was used on the ink that involved the evaporation of chloride, from the link.
This is badly described by crimelibrary and its very hard to tell what they are talking about.
A combination of tests might be appropriate to check for gross signals that may tell something but TLC which would be regarded as a kind of "screening" seems to have caused a lot of confusion regarding nigrosine and the problem with such screening tests is that they are designed (here we go again!)to indicate the potential for a problem or presence of a species. If they are not backed up with a detailed examination (which is where expensive stuff id needed) the result means nothing as screening has a high degree of uncertainty. So the TLC test for nigosine was in effect a screening for it and the AFI test for chloroacetamide was probably in effect a screening. The correct results for both of them would have been to say that nigrosine/chloroacetamide may be preent but identification and quantification cannot be achieved by thiese tests and the reccomended action should have been to implement GC-MS or equivalent.
Instead the results were discussed in a way that they should not have been - as definitive answers to whether or not a specieis was present.
Screening is fine but only when backed up with a test that can confirm whether the compound is there or not. In this case (chloroacetamide), GC-MS. Otherwise screening is just causing more trouble than its worth.
I do remember that the recipe for modern diamine contained I think two or three acid species in a certain ratio which I assume is possibly characteristic of that ink. These might be worthh looking at as some of these acids may be more straightforward to determine than chloroacetamide for example.
Mr Poster |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Hi Caz
I agree totally, it is very strange that nothing more obvious has turned up in current tests, Yes.
I agree that fooling tests may not have been a major consideration, although the fact that bleech was found in the Hitler diaries means it is possible that the Maybrick hoaxer might have heard and considered this.
I do not beleive that obtaining Original 1988 victorian ink would have been that easy. And I dont beleive that there are commonly available recippi books. Perhaps someone should check liverpool Libruary.
Interesting that the feature states the USA have an archive of over 3000 inks. This means info available somewhere.
The point I am trying to make is simple. Unless we can prove catigorically that Barrett or Anybody could obtain such an ink from somewhere then it is a possibility that he could have aquired such an ink. Thus Mr Posters tests would merely prove that the Diary was consistant with being written in 1888 and consistant with being writen in 1992 with victorian powder ink mixed with a bottle of Evian.
Stale mate again.
Please dont get me wrong I am doing everything possible to raise some money and all ready have a promise of 'free tests' on the Vineland Map and Voynich...just need more time. Will talk to you both when I have firmer commitments.
Mr P, need time to read your post carefully...It would seem from this link that it was the ink rather than the false provinance trail that got them cault out.......now if the Maybrick hoaxer had laid a trail of false hand writing like Hoffman instead of the watch we'd rearly be in trouble.
Cheers guys, hugs all round. Hope those who have been scared off the thread will soon return. Input welcome.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:12 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Actually, I don't think it's in the least bit strange that 'nothing more obvious has turned up in current tests'. I can think of one obvious reason, and only one.
It's the modern hoax theorists who have yet to come up with a single plausible reason why tests on the diary and watch scratches to date have consistently failed to reveal any obvious signs of modernity or hanky-panky.
Now, one other thing that ought to be examined again and tested, is the glue, or other greasy/sticky substance, with which parts of the diary are stained.
Was there some sort of accidental spillage perhaps? If so, when did it happen? How old are the stains, and is there a way of confirming what Voller observed?:
Assuming this staining is glue... there you see a dot of ink which is beneath the glue so it's been there a very very long time. The glue does not have the feel of modern synthetic glue...
Was this ink dot towards the start of the diary? If the first existing pages were written before such a mishap, is it possible that the missing pages were ruined and had to be removed?
So many more questions for which the answers may become available in time and - hopefully - will be revealing.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Hi Caz
Well it is strange if you consider the most likely explination that Barrett created the diary and its a modern hoax. Logic then dictates that some sort of contamination entered the creation chain somewhere. And if Barrett didnt create teh diary I agree that its a very strange and puzzling manuscript with a strange story to tell.
However I agree whole heartedly that we need to consider every possibility. The glue for instance should tell us as much as the ink, if it does indeed cover the ink as you say.
i assume glue must also be mixed. So might contain tell tale contaminants.
The only thing that troubles me a little about the binding is that sumstances may have been on the memorabiliar Album long before the Hoaxer purchased it. So we need to be careful.
I beleive Mr P suggested looking for arsnic...probably a waiste of time but great TV, which I think should be looked at.
Anyway keep those suggestions coming.
I've always seen an investigation as going to the experts with suggestions, seeing what ideas they come up with, and generally bashing heads together before any tests at all are carried out.
Are there not also floricent marks that could be re-examined?
Many thanks for your reply caz
Jeff
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
"one other thing that ought to be examined again and tested, is the glue, or other greasy/sticky substance, with which parts of the diary are stained."
I'd be interested in seeing whether or not there's lampblack and/or arsenic dust in the spine of the Diary.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Yeah it would be interesting, as I said great TV.
However the arguement will still be 'It could have gotten there before the diary was writen.'
I know thats unlikely but it is possible.
Now if the glue covers the ink as caz says, thats more interesting.
It is on my list however Sir Bob.
Many thanks Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Well it is strange if you consider the most likely explination that Barrett created the diary and its a modern hoax.
Yes, that's what I meant - strange if one considers this the most likely explanation.
As you know, I have always considered it just about the least likely. 
Are there not also floricent marks that could be re-examined?
Yes, except that Dr Platt didn't attach any significance to these marks, as far as dating is concerned. We need someone with the expertise to go one better and determine something useful from them, assuming that's even possible.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Caz
Re: Florecent marks. Yes, that is as I understood it. But I am keeping an open ear for anything and making notes. Perhaps someone somewhere can give more information.
Jeff |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 2:25 am: |
|
Hello
Seems like the Shroud people are getting their act together:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050622/phw010.html?.v=18
I wonder is there anything to be learnt from a contentious matter being dealt with in a responsible and non-acrimonious manner?
Mr Poster |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
Hello
Interesting article on old inks/analysis/constituents here for Jeff leahy if he still browses the threads:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050905/full/050905-7.html
dont know how long it will be up there.
Mr P. |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 86
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Caroline and Sir Robert:
MELVIN HARRIS Told the truth when he said that there was more ink to spare in the diary.
Caroline I know how desperate you are, but for anyone interested... On 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' everyone can see that there are enormous long squiggles on page 266 - 265 - 262 - a super enormous one on page 260 another one on page 256
254 255 252 247 245 237 and it goes on with an enormous blotch of ink on page 228.
WHY DID YOU HAVE TO LIE ABOUT THIS ?
--Maria
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2983
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Wow,
Things are getting heated aren't they?
First off, Maria, THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT!!!
Secondly, why have a go at Caroline about something she may or may not have said in June?
In fact it seems like Caz was talking specifically about the florescent marks that Platt mentioned and not ink analysis per se.
Yes there may be ink that can be analysed but as to what that can determine now is another matter. And it’s important to recognise that wherever we stand, it is pointless to waste money just so the pro diarists can say, see we don’t mind getting it tested.
And anyway that’s that.
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 7:12 am: |
|
Hi Maria,
WHY DID YOU HAVE TO LIE ABOUT THIS ?
I didn't. The diary as reproduced in all Shirley's books is as it looked years ago. Were you really ignorant of that fact?
I have seen the diary very recently and I can tell you here and now that there are no big blotches left that are capable of yielding decent samples for further testing. That's just how it is.
Any further testing will almost certainly have to use ink scraped from the text itself.
Please refrain from calling me a liar in future, when you obviously don't know your facts and don't seem to want to know them.
Hi Jenni,
Many thanks for that.
I don't think Maria cares for me very much, do you?
Correction: she doesn't care for the person she fondly imagines me to be.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Jenni
Yes there may be ink that can be analysed but as to what that can determine now is another matter. And it’s important to recognise that wherever we stand, it is pointless to waste money just so the pro diarists can say, see we don’t mind getting it tested.
This seems strange coming from you of all people.
Aren't we all agreed that it would be straightforward to determine whether the ink contains chloroacetamide (if anyone doubts it)?
Judging from the time and effort that the Maybrick camp have devoted (and continue to devote) to trying to discredit the AFI tests, that would be something worth knowing.
Of course, if you're arguing that the diary is so obviously a modern fake that the matter isn't worth bothering about at all, you may have a point. But I didn't think you did believe that.
Chris Phillips
|
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1074
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
First let me just join in the chorus of saying, Maria, quit acting like a shrieking shrew. It's irritating.
Second...
so uhm..what happened to the ink blotches?
If there are none left where did they go?
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2987
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
My positions the same as it ever was. But i just thought that was bang out of order. Sorry
At least it was on the right thread!!
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Jenni
Fair enough. Though on the other hand, just because Maria is shouting at Caroline, it doesn't mean there's any less merit in getting the thing tested.
And let's face it, haven't most of us felt like shouting at Caroline Morris at some time or other? I know I have, and I suspect you have too.
There is such a thing as being "taunted beyond endurance" ...
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1556
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
PS What does your current signature line mean? It doesn't mean Tony Williams has said sorry, does it? |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2988
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I'll level with you. I haven't been following things around here as good as I should have been to make a proper comment.
OK, ok, forgive me please!!
As for the ink analysis, I suppose I should say something on this matter. Of course I am not saying it’s a bad idea to analyse the thing. Clearly that's not what I think - as you rightly point out. All I am saying is what the point is. You know what I mean - this stuff costs money. I always hope I spend my money wisely, but when it's someone else’s money we're spending it pays to be certain, don't you think?
As far as I can see Caz has not posted on this particular thread since June, so to just shout at her seemed a little odd. Though as I say I'm not properly following proceedings.
Now - I don't know if what Caz says about big blotches is right or not - I'm not a scientist.
Sure, I'm sure I've as good as shouted at Caz on many an occasion so feel free to call me a hypercritic
You know having had the chance to sit back form all this a little (only a little) has made me think that we could all be a lot more productive on getting things moving if we just spent a little less time shouting at each other and generally carrying on as we all do (myself included lol) and a little more attempting in any way to get things moving.
Jenni
ps my current signature line is from Uncle Jack pp 213.
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Jenni
I always hope I spend my money wisely, but when it's someone else’s money we're spending it pays to be certain, don't you think?
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at.
What do you want to be "certain" about?
Chris Phillips
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 89
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Jenni:
I don't know what you are talking about... Something she said in June? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry.
I'm not shouting, I'm just highlighting it, because Caroline has a tendency to twist my words, so by highlighting it, I want to make sure its easy for herto understand.
The conversation is recent, just now actually on the ploy thread, she said that there was " No more ink to spare to make more tests, unless we used the letters from the text.
I pointed out that Melvin had told me that there was plenty of ink in long squiggles on empty pages, Sir Robert said that Melvin was not telling the truth. Caroline was saying that Melvin couldn't have seen the diary, and that he only saw 2 pages ! In other words: That I had been told a lie for Melvin to come to that conclusion. Then, I remembered that in Shirley's book, The Jack the Ripper diary, she had included pages of the diary and... Lo and behold !
What do I find? The empty spaces with the long squiggles, practically in every page ! She was stating that it was her word against Melvin's ! Melvin is dead for God's sake. In any case, if there are none to spare, as she states, they will have to sacrifice some letters from the text if they want to have it done. Besides, she has been saying for years that these tests are very expensive and it has now turned out to be... That they are not expensive, so that is another thing that was not true.
That's all, I'm sorry if I have upset you.
--Maria |
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 90
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Caroline:
No, I was not ignorant about that. Melvin took only 7 small samples and assured me that there are plenty more to spare without touching the text.
Dear Ally:
Ah.... It's really horrible when Caroline and someone that calls himself Sir Robert, said that Melvin was lying when he told me that there were plenty more enormous long squiggles to spare from the diary, that can be used for testing it.
They both said that on the "ploy" thread.
That's all,
-Maria |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 27
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 9:06 pm: |
|
These guys sound like they might be very expensive.
Latest News!
Speckin Forensic Laboratories on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.....More
Speckin Forensic Laboratories use ENCASE for forensic computer analysis.
Click For Directions To Our Office
Sun Oct 23rd 2005
We are an International forensic firm specializing in consulting with plaintiff and defense lawyers involving issues concerning: Forgery, Sequencing of Entries, Alterations, Additions, Rewritings, Ink Dating and Paper, Typewriting, Facsimiles, Photocopies, Fingerprints, Narcotic and Street Drug Analysis, Analytical and Forensic Chemistry, DNA, Firearms and Toolmark Examination, Shoe and Tire Prints, Handwriting , Crime Scene Reconstruction Criminal Forensic Matters and Computer Forensics .
We have been involved in cases all around the world, from North America, South America, Australia, Europe, Asia and 49 of the U.S. states to date. Our examiners have presented testimony in over 30 states in the United States, as well as, Israel, Mexico and Canada in Federal Court, Circuit Court, District Court, employment arbitration's, depositions, Municipal Court, Federal Grand Juries, Detroit Recorder's Court, and Union arbitration's on over 1000 occasions.
We employ three document examiners, one fingerprint examiner, a forensic ink dating chemist , a DNA consultant , a trace evidence and impression evidence examiner , two computer forensic examiners as well as two secretaries. Our examiners are specialists not only in the area of signatures and handwriting problems, but also in alterations, additions, and the rewritings of medical and business records. We occupy 6,000 square feet of professional office space where our state-of-the-art instruments are located.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1787
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
Thanks, Eddie.
Woke up this morning and read this thread and the discrediting ploy thread.
I'm a happy guy.
Enjoying the world as Wilma winds down,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
so uhm..what happened to the ink blotches?
If there are none left where did they go?
Er, the ink was scraped off for testing of course. It's not rocket science. I don't know precisely when the diary was reproduced for Shirley's first book (published in October 1993), but Leeds University took their samples straight from the document in November 1994 (telling Shirley that they found it extremely difficult to remove the ink from the paper or to dissolve in solvent).
And the Rendell team did their work between September and November 1993, when Robert took the diary to America - so these samples would also have been taken after the diary itself had been copied for Shirley's book.
Hi Chris P,
Aren't we all agreed that it would be straightforward to determine whether the ink contains chloroacetamide (if anyone doubts it)?
Yes, and if it doesn't, you already warned us what you'd say - that the chloroacetamide detected by AFI in 1994 must have disappeared over the years.
Again, do you think we are all retarded, and can only remember one of your pronouncements at a time?
Hi Maria,
What do I find? The empty spaces with the long squiggles, practically in every page !
Yes, but see above - the pages you are looking at were produced before the later samples of ink were taken. Why won't that sink in?
...they will have to sacrifice some letters from the text if they want to have it done.
Again, who are they? Robert has already stated quite clearly that he is willing to release the diary for more testing no strings attached and proved that willingness when Jenni took up the challenge.
Besides, she has been saying for years that these tests are very expensive and it has now turned out to be... That they are not expensive, so that is another thing that was not true.
I have asked and asked how much new tests might cost if conducted by a private company (and have also expressed my approval of any university tests that can be done for free), because I truly have little or no idea, and answers are as rare as hens' teeth from those who shout the longest and loudest.
We never did get even a ball park figure for McCrone, for example. It's a great shame that this wasn't followed up before John Omlor pulled out for personal reasons and nominated his successor, Paul Begg, who found that getting written information out of McCrone was like pulling those same hens' teeth.
No, I was not ignorant about that. Melvin took only 7 small samples and assured me that there are plenty more to spare without touching the text.
God, this is hard getting the facts through to you, because you just ignore them first time round. How do you think Melvin was able to take anything from the diary itself, seeing as he never even asked Robert to see the damned thing?
Melvin saw the blotches on the photocopied pages Paul Feldman sent him early in 1993, just as you can see the blotches as they looked the same year. Melvin arranged for six dots of ink on paper which were left over from the Rendell tests to be sent to AFI from America. As far as I am aware, they didn't have to pass through Melvin's hands at all, and I'd be very surprised if they did.
Why so much rubbish has to be posted by certain members of the modern forgery brigade may be a mystery to some. But it doesn't surprise me in the least.
The day that they can all do without myth or muck - or both - to aid their arguments, is the day when they may earn a bit more respect for their beliefs.
Right now I can only shake my head at the rubbish being talked by some, and worse, tolerated by others who not only should know better; they do know better.
Do they seriously think the 'cause' is helped in this way?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Maria Birchwood
Detective Sergeant
Username: Maria
Post Number: 91
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Caroline:
The labs only took micro dots from the diary. by dwelling on the past, and constantly finding someone to blame is pointless and unhelpful. The past is the past.
We must look to the future and see how these tests can be properly conducted. By asking the right questions to the lab.
Constantly blaming Mr. Omlor about his reasons for pulling out 3 years ago is really not relevant if the tests can be done today.
If truth must be said, the onus is on the owner of the diary. I do not expect a buyer to assess the value of my diamond to prove is real. They expect me to give them proof of authenticity.
The diary doesn't have it. And apparently, it doesn't matter, because some of the better books are 'best sellers' not yours of course. But so long it keeps on yielding money to all the people who feed from these 'Diary' it doesn't matter does it?
--Maria |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 28
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Your Welcome, John
I think, instead of testing for Chloroacetamide, the ink should be tested for Iron. From what I was reading, the older inks have a much higher percentage of iron than the later inks. If the ink shows a high percentage of iron, Then they should get it examined by an expert who might be able to see how long the ink was on the paper.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Yes, and if it doesn't, you already warned us what you'd say - that the chloroacetamide detected by AFI in 1994 must have disappeared over the years.
Well, of course I didn't "warn you what I'd say" - yet again, that's just your own silly little spin on things.
As you know very well, if it wasn't for the fact that AFI said there was chloroacetamide in the ink, there would be no reason to think that the diarist hadn't used genuine Victorian ink, whenever it was written.
Again, do you think we are all retarded ...
Don't tempt me!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on October 24, 2005) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
