|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1749
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 9:53 am: | 
|
Hi All,
Anyone interested in seeing a part of the original handwritten list (the part that has the three separate items right next to each other that are all also right next to each other in the diary -- and which appears in printed form separated and in bold print at the top of a page in Fido of course), can send me e-mail and when I return home tomorrow I will send it to them.
I tried posting it here yesterday, but it was too big and I can't seem to make it any smaller.
Thanks,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1463
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
John H
As Chris points out, it would be nice to simply verify AFI's results and determine if chloracetamaide is in the ink. But even if it was there in 1992, I'd be skeptical there's much to find at this point simply because of the time that has been allowed to elapse.
How interesting!
Do you have any quantitative data on the timescale over which it breaks down?
If it really breaks down so fast that it would have become undetectable in the 10 years since the AFI tests, doesn't that tell us something rather interesting in itself?
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Chris,
I don't know that it would be undetectable at this point, but it would certainly be less than the amount that was there before.
I do have some information on the breakdown rate at home somewhere, but it's not directly comparable to what we have here. The study was undertaken to see the rate of breakdown when used in agriculture. The rate of breakdown increased when exposed to air, heat and light, so if the diary was baked as Mike has alleged, that could account for the lesser amount found in the AFI sample than would be expected from a fresh sample.
I believe that I posted a link to it at some point, but I will try and dig it up again over the weekend. It's probably on a CD somewhere}. I've gone through 2 computers while AWOL, and most of my JtR stuff is archived.
Best regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
John H
The rate of breakdown increased when exposed to air, heat and light, so if the diary was baked as Mike has alleged, that could account for the lesser amount found in the AFI sample than would be expected from a fresh sample.
As I understand it, the AFI procedure involved a substantial dilution of the material that was extracted from the ink, so it isn't possible to calculate an equivalent concentration of chloroacetamide in the ink. I think this is why people have sometimes thought the amount measured was lower than expected.
I'd be interested to see the figures on the rate of breakdown of chloroacetamide (though I expect it would be very different in soil).
Chris Phillips
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
John O.
You really have me thinking on this. It IS strange that the list matches the Diary in the same order. Also, about B.G. passing the Bryant/May Factory every day.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1754
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
Lars,
I hope we're both wrong.
Eddie,
The diarist saw the list. The text makes that clear.
Enjoy the Sunday everyone,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Mr Poster
Chloroacetamide would convince me of modernity but only in quantities indicative of its intended inclusion as a constituent/additive to ink.
Yes, the reason I asked was that I remembered you saying something like that before.
Of course, there are people who won't be convinced by any kind of evidence (which was why I added the qualification "anyone worth mentioning").
So granted that even Roberts thought that the AFI test was suggestive of the presence of chloroacetamide, but could not establish it definitely, it would be worth resolving the issue for the benefit of people like you.
Maybe you could speak to some of your contacts, and try out the "payment in publicity" route. If a reputable institution offered free testing of the diary, its owner would make it available. Or so we've been assured.
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Chris,
You're absolutely right about the amount. We have no real idea how much was there. The samples included paper dots (estimated at 10%) of the weight of the sample. We don't know how much actual ink there was. Acetone was used to extract some chloracetamide from the sample. We don't know how much of what was present was actually extracted. Nor did the test itself give any quantitative analysis of how much was there! We have lot's of variables, but few answers.
They were testing for the presence of chloracetamide, not for an amount.
I did find AN article on the breakdown of chloracetamide in my notes, but it wasn't the exact one I was thinking of. Here's the key bit:
"A direct photodegradation is not expected. A half-life of 7.1 days can be calculated for the photochemical oxidative degradation in air."
How that translates to the exact circumstance we have here, no one knows. I am sure no study has been done on anything directly comparable.
The article is no longer on-line, but I can email you a PDF of it if you'd like. I'll keep looking for the other one.
Best regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
John H
"A direct photodegradation is not expected. A half-life of 7.1 days can be calculated for the photochemical oxidative degradation in air."
How that translates to the exact circumstance we have here, no one knows. I am sure no study has been done on anything directly comparable.
Thanks for those details.
Obviously if AFI were correct in identifiying chloroacetamide in the ink in 1994, the rate of degradation couldn't have been anything like that high, or there would have been none left to detect.
Another little puzzle.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 115
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Well Hi Dave and Mr Poster. Nice to see you back again too John H!
Dave.
I’ve been busy earning money to feed the family for the last week and so am just catching up on a whole weeks worth or more. Not much about the tin box here amongst all the mutual back slapping, so perhaps I can start again?
Thanks for the little lecture on my gullibility, or the lack of it! The wishful thinking seems to work in equal measure between those who try to paint the diary as a modern creation and those who would hold it as genuine. It works both ways, and both sides have some fairly weak arguments that are regularly trotted out to support their cause. I just remain one of those who is utterly unconvinced that the “Holy Cow” that is the tin matchbox argument is anything like a good indication for the diary being created since 1984 as it requires me to suspend any sort of common sense. There is never likely to be any evidence as to whether this Police list is a “One off”, (sorry!), or not, so good old fashioned common sense must be brought into play .
The Police made a list of Kate’s belongings and then just handed it over saying “……………here you are Mr coroner. This is the list of Miss Eddowes’ possessions we took down. You’ll need this for the inquest and then to place under lock and key for the next century. Despite the fact that therein may possibly lie a clue to the identity of the killer, we won’t keep any record of it ourselves, we won’t require any copies, and promise not to investigate for fear that it goes down in the record held on Police files.”
Am I supposed to believe that is how it happened? A by now desperate Police force ignoring the evidence? I don’t think so. It absolutely beggars belief that this one extant copy of the list of Kate’s possessions was the only reference to this irritating little tin box.
You’re going to have to pardon me on this one. I’d like to be convinced either way. Honestly I would, but I’m afraid this simplistic type of argument just doesn’t do it for me. I’m guessing that this one will still be raging here in 12 months from now, which will, I think, speak volumes.
Hi Eddie.
Well I like your reference to Bryant and May and I think you make a very good point.
Have you ever considered why the Police, in creating their little list, identified this one box of Kate’s as a matchbox when it was devoid of any contents, rather than just a tin box? It seems to me there are but two possibilities:
1. There was some sort of identifying feature such as a serrated “striking” area on it somewhere, or
2. it was branded in some way, either embossed or more likely printed with the name of the match company who manufactured the original contents.
A combination of the two seems most likely from what I’ve seen of the very small number of extant Victorian examples I’ve seen pictures of, and if so its ten to one that it was Bryant and May. I reckon you make a good point that this is what the diary means by a “very good clue.” It ties in nicely with not only the Punch cartoon, but also the “May comes and goes….” bit in the diary.
Bryant and May also used to sell their matches under the brand name of BRYMAY at one time. Even better!
As for the order of the items on the Police list, and their order in the diary. What about the “bonnett”?
Hi John H.
Nice to see you again like I said.
“I agree that the use of "tin" would be rather weird if the author didn't simply crib it from the police inventory. As would "empty" for that matter.”
I don’t know about the US, but in Britain the term “tin box” is a generic term in use to this day to describe metal containers of all sorts, none of them made of tin. I really don’t understand quite how suspicious this should be.
Best regards to all,
Paul.
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
"The Police made a list of Kate’s belongings and then just handed it over saying “……………here you are Mr coroner. This is the list of Miss Eddowes’ possessions we took down. You’ll need this for the inquest and then to place under lock and key for the next century. Despite the fact that therein may possibly lie a clue to the identity of the killer, we won’t keep any record of it ourselves, we won’t require any copies, and promise not to investigate for fear that it goes down in the record held on Police files.” "
I've made this sort of argument in the past, Paul. Let's add "we won't make any copies for Scotland Yard or anyone else in the chain of command, despite the high profile of the case after the Double Event".
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1756
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Sir Robert writes:
I've made this sort of argument in the past, Paul.
Indeed. And this time, like all the other times, there is no evidence of any sort offered to support it.
So nothing has changed.
And we still know exactly where a copy of this list could be found, easily available for all to see, don't we?
So if we're really talking about what's "most likely" -- given this and all the other textual problems (all of which without exception are easily and logically accounted for given a modern date of composition using only Paul's suddenly invoked "common sense," and none of which can be accounted for under any other hypothesis without the desperate prayer of something we've never found existing somewhere) -- then I'm more than comfortable. Oh yes, I love discussing what's "likely" concerning things like exact and identical modern pub names and Mike mysteriously knowing the modern location for an unidentified line in the diary and the handwriting being a modern imitation of Victorian according to at least one expert and the long ago listed phrases that also appear verbatim in modern sources and the total lack of verifiable provenance and the numerous lies told by the diary's "founders" and all the rest and indeed what in the end makes simple "common sense."
If it's now to be what's "likely" and what makes "common sense" that is our new measuring stick for explaining the origin of this document, then I'm a happy camper.
--John
PS: I've sent the copy of the relevant part of the handwritten list to a few people. Anyone else interested, send me mail and I'll send it along. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Paul,
"It absolutely beggars belief that this one extant copy of the list of Kate’s possessions was the only reference to this irritating little tin box."
"There is never likely to be any evidence as to whether this Police list is a “One off”, (sorry!), or not, so good old fashioned common sense must be brought into play."
And you're talking to me about wishful thinking. It's perfectly reasonable to think the police DID have their own copy. But did they? You probably can't show me anything about this one particular document (which doesn't seem to have survived), but what you could do is learn something about routine procedure. Instead, you insist on relying on what you think sounds right--forget asking someone with the City of London police. You want to show that they were accessible? Show me. But as you've said, I'm not to expect any evidence from you. And you're asking me about storage conditions and accusing me of claiming absolute proof! Forget that I've talked about priveliged access and copies going to the court. I am a wishful thinker.
Okay, here's some wishful thinking. The coroner's depositions WERE kept under lock and key until they were archived. Copies were provided to the court, director of public prosecutions, and police, but Langham, who must have had a sense of humor and was therefore a practical joker, sidestepped the requirement by having a clerk write them out in invisible ink (Crawford was so mad). The clerk who took them down was blinded and his tongue cut out.
I win. My wishful thinking is as relevant as yours. Wait--your wishful thinking is also as relevant as mine. Langham's coroner's court had a drive-in window. You win. Wait, my common sense tells me you must be an idiot. Now yours tells me that I'm arrogant. Crap, wishful thinking goes on forever. Hope and desire dies hard. I'm left sucking my own toes, but that's okay--so are you. I hope yours taste mighty good.
I don't really think you're an idiot, Paul.
Dave |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1757
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Paul also mysteriously asks:
As for the order of the items on the Police list, and their order in the diary. What about the “bonnett”?
Once again, for the hard of reading: The police list places three items next to one another -- the knife, the cigarette case and the matchbox. The relevant page of the diary lists together three items: the matchbox, the cigarette case and the knife. From the long list of many items these same three appear adjacent to one another on the police list and placed together in the same little verse on a single page in the diary.
Later, on the next page, the diarist also mentions a few other items also from the list -- like the sugar, the tea, and the bonnet. But these are in separate verses.
The grouping together of the cigarette case, the knife and the "tin matchbox empty" takes place in both the diary and in the original list.
The writer of the diary was looking at the list.
Or is that somehow not the most likely explanation using simple "common sense"?
Happy with Paul's new standard,
--John
|
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
John,
I just thought of something here that might be a little interesting. Abberline "held back" the matchbox. Some say it was probably because "Bryant/May" was on the box. But how would he know this was a clue? The Diary says "Did I not leave him a Very Good clue". It's possible, if Maybrick is the Ripper, he might have scratched off the word "Bryant" and left "MAY" on the box. Or maybe he even covered the "Bryant word with blood. I don't think Abberline would hold this back unless there was someting on that box that really caught his attention.
Yours Truly,
Eddie
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
Abberline couldn't hold back anything. He was with the Metropolitian Police. Kate Eddowes was a City of London case. |
Eddie Derrico
Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 20
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
R.J.
I'm sorry. I'm going by the Diary which isn't very wise here. Anyway, whoever gave that list to the News and held back that info must have had a very good reason to do so.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1758
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Hi Eddie,
Well, what we do know is that whoever wrote the diary was referring to the list. The placement of items in the text tells us that much, especially combined with the repetition of the phrase.
Oh, and we also know where anyone who wanted could find the list conveniently separated on the page and printed in bold face.
And when we look at the date the list became generally available to all and then look at the date the diary turns up...
Well, you know.
Still loving Paul's "what's the most likely explanation" and "what does common sense tell us" approach,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Hey Paul ! Following up on your comment:
"The Police made a list of Kate’s belongings and then just handed it over saying “……………here you are Mr coroner. This is the list of Miss Eddowes’ possessions we took down. You’ll need this for the inquest and then to place under lock and key for the next century. Despite the fact that therein may possibly lie a clue to the identity of the killer, we won’t keep any record of it ourselves, we won’t require any copies, and promise not to investigate for fear that it goes down in the record held on Police files.”
Am I supposed to believe that is how it happened? A by now desperate Police force ignoring the evidence? I don’t think so. It absolutely beggars belief that this one extant copy of the list of Kate’s possessions was the only reference to this irritating little tin box. "
There are a couple of points pertinent to your argument that you might like to consider.
Numerous newspapers on 1 October 1888 published a description of Eddowes and her clothing and listed her possessions. Almost all these newspapers reported that Eddowes wore a dress of dark green chintz with a pattern of Michaelmas daisies and Gordon lilies. The inventory preserved among the inquest papers mentions the chintz skirt but does not mention the pattern.
Interestingly the Daily Telegraph, 1 October 1888, refers to the source of its information about Eddowes’ possessions as ‘the full official description’.
Where did this document come from, and where did it go ?
On 1 October 1888 The Times published a description of Eddowes and a list of her possessions. This list includes references to a printed handbill with the name "Frank Cater, 405, Bethnal road”’ on it and a portion of a pair of spectacles, neither of which appear on the official inventory of Eddowes’ possessions preserved among the inquest papers. It also refers to a very blunt white bone handle table knife being found in a white linen pocket, whereas the official inventory only refers to ‘1 White Handle Table Knife & I Metal Tea Spoon’. The inquest inventory only mentions two boxes, one containing tea and the other being a matchbox which it describes as empty, however The Times on 1 October 1888 lists among Eddowes’ possessions ‘a match box with cotton in it’. If the empty matchbox is the same matchbox that had contained cotton then it looks as if the cotton had been lost between the inventory being made that was published in The Times and the inventory that is preserved among the inquest papers.
From the foregoing it seems reasonable to conclude that a inventory was made and widely circulated to the newspapers and one can probably safely assume divisional and possibly even provincial police forces, that this inventory was ‘official’, as stated by the Daily Telegraph, and that it was fuller and more complete than the inventory preserved among the inquest papers. It further appears that the inquest inventory was a list made much later and was incomplete and was made after some items such as the cotton had gone missing. In other words, there was an earlier and widely circulated inventory.
The debate over whether or not the coroner's papers were kept locked up is perhaps not the only argument we should be having....
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1759
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
There is a stunning and completely unsupported logical leap in the above post.
Sir Robert writes:
Interestingly the Daily Telegraph, 1 October 1888, refers to the source of its information about Eddowes’ possessions as ‘the full official description’.
Where did this document come from, and where did it go?
What document?
Where and when was the existence of a document established? Where is it made clear that the "official description" was a document sent to the paper?
We have always known that there were differences between the official list and the assorted stuff that showed up in the papers -- but nowhere is there any evidence that this is because the papers were sent any other official document (the differences between newspaper reports and official reports in this case is legendary and I see no reason it should be surprising to anyone).
How Sir Robert gets from newspapers printing information other than what is in the list to the self-assured conclusion that "there was an earlier and widely circulated inventory" remains a complete mystery. Unless he has just made up the existence of such a document in another moment of wishful thinking.
Of course, the fact that he assumes that the famous Times "cotton" existed and went missing shows that he is clearly making leaps of faith without any real evidence once again.
And you don't need faith to know that there is a document that has everything that appears in the diary and was readily available to forgers in a book on the Ripper before the diary ever appeared.
Still, that's too easy, I guess. It makes too much "common sense" (especially when every other textual problem also goes away once you assume the logical conclusion).
Amazed as always,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
Hi Sir Bob and john
Just touching base with Maybrick Land. And reading the thread.
It seems logical to me that if the papers printed information about itoms found on and worn by Cathrine Eddows they must have gotten this information from somewhere....must they not?
So if the police didnt release an official list of everything would they have given a press confrance and read the list out? Surely the police keep this information back incase clues lead to the killer?
So how would the press have known about the red cigarette case?
Its not really a diary question, you just got me thinking how much information was given to the press by the police. And how much would have had to be collected by reporters on the ground.
Would this information all have been available at the inquest?
How did reporters get their story? they must have been desperate for information as they were in competition from other news papers.
Is it possible some journalists had inside contacts with the poorly paid police?
You just sent my mind off in a differant direction. We know there was a press frenzy, and some reporters may have fueled the story by creating letters.
How did they get their information?
Yours Jeff
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 546
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
Hi Jeff !
"It's not really a Diary question".
Couldn't agree more.
A description of Eddowes and her possessions WAS published in many newspapers. The similarity between the reports suggests that there was a common source and at least one newspaper described that source as ‘official’ and there is no reason to suppose that this wasn’t the case.
There was therefore an ‘official’ description and inventory on which many newspapers drew, therefore that common source achieved wide circulation. That it was fuller and more detailed than the inquest inventory – for example, when it describes her dress as dark green chintz with a pattern of Michaelmas daisies and Gordon lilies on it, this detail being missing from the inquest inventory –is consistent with a description given to assist with identification, which suggests that the description and inventory was made BEFORE identification and therefore probably before the inquest, whereas the inquest inventory is a straightforward itemised list and possibly prepared especially for the inquest, ergo it was made after the one circulated to the press. That it was possibly an aid to identification suggests that it was issued by the police and that it would also have been circulated to divisional and perhaps provincial forces. This all seems fairly straightforward reasoning to me.
Conjecture - sure. Wild a$$ed guess - no.
The identification angle is key to me; it's not as if these poor souls carried I.D. and so it is not far fetched to think that the list of what she was carrying might be perceived as helping to identify who the victim was.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1760
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
While others are having some fun with "conjecture," let's return to the issue at hand and make sure we don't out-think ourselves.
All of the press reports Sir Robert mentions have one thing in common -- none of them say "tin matchbox empty."
But the diary does.
And so does the official list made generally available in a modern source.
None of the press reports he cites even mentions an empty tin matchbox.
But the diary does.
And so does the list made generally available in a modern source.
And that's the same list that puts the knife, cigarette case and matchbox next to each other.
And so does the diary.
The diarist was looking at the list.
And the source with the list first appears in 1987.
And the diary appears when?
It's all a lot simpler than some folks want it to be.
All the actual evidence in the text still supports the same conclusion.
--John
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi sir Bob
If the Times reported that the 'Tin Match Box' was not empty. Dont you think John has rather a fair point here?
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5127
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Re the list, I'm asking myself what was holding Kate's stockings up. There is no mention of garters. Did they have elasticated stockings in those days?
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Hi John H,
Chloracetamaide breaks down over time...
Was this perhaps the reason, or one reason, why Voller discontinued pre-1992 Diamine and modified its formula? Its job was to preserve the ink, after all, and the theory goes that this ink was applied to the scrapbook around 1989 (no earlier, if the theory also goes that Mike told the truth about when he obtained the Sphere book. And no later, because according to Dr Eastaugh, who examined the diary in 1992, it takes 3-5 years on the paper to make ink impossible to date, assuming it contains no provably modern ingredient).
It would be interesting to learn how and why Diamine's ingredients were changed from 1992. It does seem odd that an ink chemist would use, as a preservative, an ingredient that might break down within just a few years of use.
But rather convenient, of course, for the modern hoax theorists if they can allege that this is what must have happened, if the presence of chloroacetamide cannot be confirmed in the future.
Love,
Caz
X
PS When we all know where the diary was - or wasn't - before 1987, we will also know whether the diarist could have snatched his empty tin matchbox from a 1987 publication. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Since we "don't know where the diary was -- or wasn't -- before 1987" (because no one has ever been able to offer an even remotely believable provenance or a single bit of real evidence that tells us it even existed before 1987), it still makes perfect logical sense that the diarist snatched his empty tin matchbox from a 1987 publication, (especially since no one has ever found any other generally available source except this one which we all know about).
And thanks to the fact that this same explanation also easily and simply accounts for all the other textual problems as well (while no other theory evens begins to), Caroline's PS acts merely as a sort of smell-o-vision card. You scratch it just a bit at the proper moment during the endless discussion and it smells like desperation.
With thanks to John Waters,
--John |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Hey Robert 
They used Garters and 'rolls'.Rolls were elasticated and they put them near the top of their stockings and rolled them down, to hold their stockings in place.If Kelly is wearing anything around her leg in that pic its most likely a roll. |
John Holden
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Many years ago my school had a history exam in which one of the questions was “define agent-provocateur”; to which two (adjacent) boys each wrote “con man”. Neither admitted collusion, but that was the verdict, and (including the two involved) there wasn’t a person in the school who disagreed. Con man was a possible answer, and an expression we had heard a thousand times, yet we knew it was no coincidence.
I haven’t heard “tin matchbox empty” outside diary world, and the probability of two people writing it independently, on the same topic, approaches that of two people having identical fingerprints. If there is more evidence in the form of three items grouped together on the list and in the diary, anybody with any sense should proceed (without prejudice to chance-in-a-trillion theory or poetic licence) on the basis that the diarist knew what was in the list.
Does that prove the diary is a fake? No, because a secret is something shared by a group of less than two people. It’s irresponsible to suggest that a list shared by some nineteenth century policemen, their nearest and dearest and the occupants of a coroner’s office during ninety odd years should be treated as having remained secret.
I agree it’s the most likely answer, but the degree of certainty falls a country mile short of that associated with “tin matchbox empty”.
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 7:37 am: |
|
Hello. Sorry for retreading the same ground but Ive been away for a week and am catching up a bit...
Do you have any quantitative data on the timescale over which it breaks down?
If it really breaks down so fast that it would have become undetectable in the 10 years since the AFI tests, doesn't that tell us something rather interesting in itself?
The question is not really the rate (such things are very dependant on other things) but its daughter products which may be tested for and quantitatively related to the progenitors concentration.
But a quick glance at my Chemical Rubber Company handbook (read: Chemistry bible) indicates a boiling point of around 225°C, melting point of 120°C and a vapour pressure, kPa at 20°C of 0.007 so its not exactly evaporating off the page at normal room temperature. Oddly enough, its soulbility in water at 20 degress is 98 g/100ml which indicates to me a polar compound in which case acetone may not have been the solvent to use to get it off the page. Ethanol or something may have been much better which may explain why it was not found in the quantities expected. But that relates to 2-chloroacetamide and I am not sure what type was used in the ink.
But I did ring an analyst friend of mine and asked him how he would analyse chloroacetamide and he said he had only ever analysed metolachlor in soils which is a pesticide that uses chloroacetamide as its main ingredient and for that the extraction uses a methanol/water mixture which agrees with the concept that chloroacetamide is a polar compound requiring a polar solvent such as that mentioned. Acetone as extractant may be very suspect indeed and is the part I would point at in being a weakness in the test used.
As far as I know the product is still used in computer ink cartridges/pesticides so it hasnt been discontinued due to instability or anything.
Regarding techniques: (once more). GC-MS or LC-MS will determine and identify chloroacetamide without doubt. The techniques do exist and its not exactly costly (but getting it done a few times in a reproducible manner may be).
The reason I persist in twittering on about chloroacetamide is that it seems to be the closet thing we have come to to being a factor that would determine if the ink was old or new. Im not going to mention the "small producers" concept as I think thats a bit desperate.
Mr P.
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Howdy John Hacker
If I remember the report you are thinking of is the German Chemical Societies Advisory Commitee which stated that the direct photodegradation of chloroacetamide was not expected and that volatility from aqueous solution (ink) was poor.
Unless the diary was left open in sunlight on every page for much of the time, photolytic degradation could not be expected to have occurred on all the ink surely (assuming it had been shown that it was a factor in the degradation of this chemical which it has not been shown to be)
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1769
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Hi Lars,
I'm just beating Jenni to the "wrong thread" warning.
March on,
--John
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page