|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Forensic Evidence
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Forensic Evidence
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Sunday, 16 September 2001 - 07:45 pm |        | | I've removed the past few days worth of posts on this thread, which have devolved into little more than a series of petulant, off-topic attacks. If you need to act in an immature and irresponsible manner, please do it under Pub Talk so that future generations don't need to be witness to the fact. There is enough hatred and intolerance in the world this week - I have no desire to play host to any more of it on this web site. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 16 September 2001 - 07:56 pm | | | Nice one Spry ! |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 16 September 2001 - 08:18 pm | | Sounds good to me Stephen.
I will, however, re-post my recent question about the diary.
If, as has been reported by Melvin Harris, the handwriting in the diary does not match Mike's or Anne's, then why didn't Mike mention this fact in the tapes when he was trying to convince Keith and Shirley that he did not write the diary? This would have been a natural thing to use in such a conversation, in his favor. In his confessions, of course, he claims it is Anne's. Is this too a lie?
Just wondering if anyone had any ideas about this.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 17 September 2001 - 07:32 am | | Hi John,
My guess is that, by January 1995, Mike would have been well aware that Keith and Shirley had long since decided that the diary was in neither Barrett's handwriting. It probably didn't occur to Mike that it ever needed saying again.
I'll pass your post on to Keith as usual. But my own opinion is that Mike knew he wouldn't be fooling Shirley and co. with certain claims he made in his sworn statements, including the one that Anne penned the diary - such claims were only meant to impress others who knew no different.
But, as you say, Melvin wasn't fooled either by this particular claim of Mike's. It seems that only his obvious lies have had to be acknowledged as such. Any claim that had a grain of truth, or hasn't yet been totally disproved, has been milked for its circumstantial evidence that Mike really does know something about the earliest days of the diary's existence.
But the question remains. Why would Mike claim under oath that Anne wrote the diary, and that they were both involved in forgery (damaging his income and his whole family, not just his wife and daughter, in the process), if Anne clearly didn't write it, and he clearly didn't write it, but he knew who did, and was just acting as handler/placer for them?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 17 September 2001 - 08:15 am | | | Caz--are you entirely certain that Ms. Graham didn't merely 'usurp' the diary on that fateful day in the Moat House in July 1994? Best wishes, RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 17 September 2001 - 09:45 am | | Hi RJ,
No, of course not - I've never been certain about anyone's account, or theory, explaining the diary's origins. Perhaps I never will. That's the trouble - every one has far too many problems associated with it for me to settle at present on one that looks less unlikely than another. To me they will all be impossible, unless or until someone can prove which one is the truth.
If Anne usurped the diary in July 1994, who do you think composed and wrote it, and did Anne know they would not want, or be able, to prove her story false?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 02:09 pm | | On the 29th May 2002 I received a message from John Omlor part of which read: "I have written to Robert Smith about arranging for McCrone and Director Barabe
to conduct a new, full and comprehensive set of tests on the diary ink and on
the diary in general. Joe has talked to me at some length about this project
and he does believe that his organization can, at the least, offer us new
information that has not been part of the investigation so far. I think,
personally, they can clear up the conflicts between AFI and Leeds and solve
the Diamine issue for starters."
This seemed hopeful and although we were going to be in the US and Mexico for several weeks I looked forward to some developments. However on the 22nd August I received a message to say that due to reasons beyond his control, John had asked Paul Begg to handle negociations with Robert Smith.
When several of us met in London a few weeks ago for the BBC taping, my wife asked Paul how things were going. he could not remember John's name and had to be prompted by Shirley Harrison! It seems obvious that due perhaps to pressure of work, Paul was unable to do anything.
I would therefore like to tell those interested in this affair that although John Omlor will not be contributing to these boards in the future, he has told us that there would be no problem with financing the new tests and that the particular laboratory (which is one of the most respected firms dealing with questioned documents) is confident that new information can be discovered.
So let me address this directly to Robert Smith:
You have agreed in the past that subject to certain provisos you have no problem with allowing further tests to be made on the Diary. Let us try to agree a procedure for allowing those tests to be made. Let us discuss this matter so that the Diary can be confirmed as a historic document or rejected as a fake. If you want to communicate directly with me please contact me at missingheirs@celticresearch.co.uk
And to other readers of these boards: There may be some who see no need for further tests, secure in their beliefs on one side or the other. I do however believe that most of us would welcome new, exhaustive and definitive tests. If you do or do not, please put your opinions here. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 03:02 pm | | Well, I hate to be a curmudgeon here, but, though I disagree with Robert Smith's opinions about the Maybrick Diary, I share his skepticism about further ink tests. From what I've read, once the ink has been on the paper for several years, "all is lost" as far as precise dating is concerned. But perhaps a test could compare the ink to the known recipe of Diamine; I've read about such tests.
I'd be interested in knowing how Mr. McCrone can gaurantee conclusive testing. I'd also be interested in knowing what John Omlor meant by a 'comprehensive set of tests' on 'the diary in general.' It seems to me that some ground doesn't need to be covered again. For instance, some very competent forensic handwriting experts have come to the sane conclusion that the diary's writing doesn't match James Maybrick's. And I don't think any textual analysis would be meaningful; we've already been down that road.
Finally, the last time I was in a bookstore I saw copies of Paul Feldman's book still being sold. Pocket Books [part of the Disney group], Blake, and Headline [who published Anne Graham's book] all made money directly or indirectly off the diary. The overwhelming evidence is that the diary is a forgery; any further tests should be in part or in whole funded by the above publishers, in my humble opinion. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 05:04 pm | | What is a curmudgeon?
And what evidence do you have for saying the diary is a forgery? The idea is preposterous!
Peter: Do all the tests you want on the diary, and much respect to John Omlor for still being involved. I am confident that the diary will come out as the winner in these tests - I'm also confident that if the 'detractors' don't get the result they are looking for (which they won't, because the diary is genuine) then they will just keep going on and on and on until they can find someone who will fix tests in their favour.
R.J. You're being naughty again, statements such as "The overwhelming evidence is that the diary is a forgery ..." are merely pollen on the wind without something to back it up.
But there is nothing to back it up, is there?
Even respected ripperologists now openly admit that Mike Barrett didn't forge the diary and that, my friend, takes the ONE piece of "evidence" you could have quoted (the Sphere guide) right out of the equation.
Perhaps you should concentrate on finding out how a forger knew about "Sir Jim/Sir James" before making such bold statements.
Here's mine: The overwhelming evidence is that the diary is genuine.
Scientific tests: Indicate the diary to be genuine.
Graphology: Indicates the diary to be genuine.
Psychology: Indicates the diary to be genuine.
Don't anybody go offering me any help in here, this ain't no pie eatin' contest.
Peter |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 05:40 am | | Hi All,
As Peter Birchwood has brought Paul Begg’s name into this, and Paul hasn’t been posting for some time, I emailed him about this plan for ‘new, exhaustive and definitive tests’ that will prove beyond doubt whether the diary is an old, and therefore historically interesting document, or a late 1980s fake. This is his reply to me:
‘Prior to the filming of the Writers and Readers Roadshow, Maria Birchwood questioned me about the ‘scientific’ tests on the diary that John Omlor had arranged. I don’t recall whether or not I momentarily forgot John’s name, my mind obviously being concentrated on Patricia Cornwell at the time, but Maria Birchwood was set on suggesting that delays were down to Robert Smith not handing the diary over for testing. I explained several times that this was not the case and that at this stage we were simply trying to establish what if any tests could be conducted that would result in definitive answers. I also explained several times that I had emailed the contact several times but had received no reply. I also told her that I had been informed that the contact does not answer his emails and that I would have to telephone him, but that I had not yet been able to do so. It has been my intention to do so in the New Year.’
It appears pretty obvious to me that it is more than a simple matter of Robert handing over the diary and everyone putting a few quid in a hat. It has first to be established what further tests can achieve, whether they can be repeated by other labs, how they are to be financed and whether everyone will accept the results. Until then, Robert has no one to hand the diary over to.
I still can’t imagine why Melvin Harris, having done his experiment with plain iron gall ink six years ago, has never gone through the same simple process using pre-1992 Diamine – a cheap and easy test that would have shown long ago if there is any physical resemblance between that and the ink in the diary, and therefore whether more scientific tests were worth commissioning, assuming the result looked promising.
But maybe Melvin did do such an experiment and, like the Sphere book, it has become another sacred relic that no one is ever going to see.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 09:44 am | | Caz--The AFI test did show a 'physical resemblance' between the diary and pre-1992 Diamine...the presence of chloroacetamide. With that, I think, Melvin rested his case. And why not? He certainly hasn't been rebutted. If the diary publishers feel he is wrong, they should dip into their own pockets and fund new tests. Perhaps give us an example of a Victorian ink that use chloroacetamide, for starters? Yes, there are tests that can compare the diary's ink to the known recipe of 1992 Diamine; such a test is offered by the Speckin Lab in the United States. Obviously, though, such a test would require new access the Ripper journal.
I admire Peter Birchwood's effort to resolve the controversy. I don't see, however, why he or any other researcher should be required to fund such a test. The way I look at it is this: the arguments against the diary being authentic are weighty. I would call them overwhelming. The defense can afford to rest their case at this point. It's up to those who wish to keep prosecuting Jim Maybrick to come up with some evidence against him; the critics need not cooperate, nor do the prosecution's work for them. Disney, Corp. can certainly afford a battery of tests, if they feel their product is worthy of being on the market. Or maybe someone can follow in Ivor's footsteps and try to get some British government office interested in the testing or the B.B.C. Personally, though, I think the research money could be better spent elsewhere; I'm happy to let Feldman, Cornwell, and others spend their own money on their own theories. Cheers, RJP |
Author: Robert Smith
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 12:43 pm | | TO: PETER BIRCHWOOD, RJ PALMER, PETER WOOD AND CAROLINE
I have said over and over again on these boards, that I would release the diary for one set of final tests, providing the testing organisation could convince me, that such tests would be conclusive in dating the diary, and I would suggest dating within a maximum 25 year tolerance. I was happy to cooperate with John Omlor or Paul Begg (as neither have axes to grind re the diary) to investigate and determine whether such tests are now available. The Diamine test in itself would be insufficient, as it would only establish the diary to be a fake, if positive. If the test were negative, then we are no further forward. As you will see from my post on the Behind the Bluff board, if Melvin Harris really believed the diary was written with Diamine ink, he would have conducted that test, when he had the diary ink samples, or at least, have taken handwriting samples of pre-1992 Diamine ink for visual comparisons with the diary ink over a period of time.
I also made it clear, that I would not get involved in the process of investigation or the funding of tests. My only role would be to supply the diary, subject to security safeguards.
Robert Smith |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 09:59 am | | RJ:
Thanks for the message. It was never my intention to get involved again in this whole sorry mess but I have been asked to intervene and although no-one on these boards with the possible exception of Peter Wood has any belief in the diary as a James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper artifact I have always felt that as the thing in its numerous incarnations is still in publication and is still being sold I have an obligation to those who might come across it as their first Ripper book and believe in it in its entirety, to show as conclusively as possible its true nature.
I have been told that there are new tests and that even some of the older tests are now much more reliable. We have had 9 years of advances since the last lot were done after all. It's my intention to contact McRone Laboratories (Walter McRone is no longer with us having gone to that great testing lab in the sky earlier this year,) and to get from them details of the tests that they think would be suitable. McRone Labs were of course involved in several high-profile cases of recent years: the Vinland Map, Turin Shroud and the Mormon Forgery case.
Robert Smith has told us that he will not fund the tests and I suspect that the current publisher of Shirley's book would say much the same thing. We therefore have no alternative but to fund these tests ourselves and I am informed that most of the cash needed for these tests is now available. Provided that Robert Smith is satisfied with the security safeguards needed to release the diary for tests, then those tests can and will be done.
Paul Begg:
I am puzzled as to why his statement should be passed through a third party when presumably even given his long absence from these boards he would still be able to pass on a simple one-para message. However as we are talking about a delay in discussing matters with McRone Labs lasting from August to today and an intention not to try to telephone them until the New Year I think that I must assume that Paul Begg is indeed much to busy to handle such a matter and even though I am spending six days a week running my own research business I will find time to call McRone this week.
Robert Smith:
Thank you for your courteous message and I will be in touch later with details of the proposed tests. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 02:22 pm | | " ...no-one on these boards with the possible exception of Peter Wood has any belief in the diary as a James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper artifact ...".
Na na na, no no no. Maybe I'm the only one who dares to post my opinion that the diary is genuine, but there are others - those that have been beaten into silence for fear of humiliation - who share my views.
R.J.'s still prattling on about some ridiculously discredited tests that found a minute trace of Chloroacetamide (but then none, as well) that proved absolutely nothing since the percentage of Chloro ... in Diamine is 0.26% and the test sample was infinitely smaller than that.
Oh, and don't forget that the Chloro stuff was in existence and being used in inks way before 1888.
So, R.J.'s beloved tests prove nothing and the ball is firmly back in the court of the detractors. It's the 89th minute, James Maybrick's coffin lid is being nailed shut and his headstone reads "Jack the Ripper". The detractors get a last minute 'free kick' and up steps R.J. to take it ...
Come on R.J., surely you've got more than that?
Oh, he's ballooned the ball over the bar!
Game set and match to me, Robert, Shirley and PHF.
James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. Case proven.
Case closed.
Goodnight
Peter |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 03:31 pm | | Hi, Peter Birchwood:
To be fair to Paul Begg, I do know that he has been tied up with finalizing his impending book, Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History as well as his work as editor of Ripperologist, a juggling act not to be envied, to be both a top author in the field and editor of the top magazine in the field of Ripper studies. I believe that Paul's absence from these boards might be explained by these work commitments as well as other considerations.
All the best
Chris |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 10:06 pm | | Peter Birchwood--Thanks for the message. If the funding is no problem, then by all means proceed. I agree that it would we wonderful the lay this ghost to rest once & for all. I hope Robert Smith sees things your way.
Peter Wood---Your use of the term 'graphology' in your post of December 12th spoke volumes. Absolute volumes! Thus, I don't feel the need to respond with any arguments of my own. My first exposure to the Maybrick diary was from reading Feldman's book; it was Feldy himself that convinced me it was a forgery.
That said, I'll leave you to return to your frantic hunt for those missing nipples on Mary Kelly's table... Best wishes, old fellow. And welcome back. RJP |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 08:27 am | | Hi, R.J.:
As an aside, I find it interesting that both Patricia Cornwell and Paul Feldman view the transparently hoax September 17 letter as genuine and discuss the letter as part of their theories about Sickert and Maybrick, respectively. I agree with you that Feldman's book is not supportive of the genuineness of the Diary but rather that his wild ideas provide a good argument that the document is a forgery. Both Feldman and Cornwell chase chimeras in an effort to "prove" their hypotheses.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 09:56 am | | Some might be interested in this, which I sent to Keith over the weekend:
Keith:
You may have found this, but the 1901 census of Greenwich shows:
William Hartnett 43 House decorator born Deptford
Hannah Hartnett 30
William Hartnett 3
Nellie Hartnett 8
Sarah Maybrick 50 stepmother widow born Scotland.
Now as I understand it, you found a death record in 1927 of "Sarah Ann Maybrick otherwise Robertson, 24 Cottesbrook Street New Cross." That address was also that of William and Alice Bills. In 1995 you found Barbara, daughter of Alice and William who introduced to you the name Hartnett.
Now the lady on the 1901 census is obviously the same one who died 1927. However there are problems in that she is far too young, being born about 1851, she is listed as Mr. Hartnett's "stepmother" implying that she must at some point have been married to Hartnett's father, and she is apparently born in Scotland. Indeed the tone of the death record: "Sarah Ann Maybrick otherwise Robertson..." is the phrase used commonly on death records either in Scotland or dealing with deaths of Scottish people.
So is this the correct Sarah Ann Robertson?
If you want to squeeze it and say that Hartnett (born 1858 Deptford) could have been one of the famouse five illegitimate Maybrick's, then that is just possible as he's born about the time James met Sarah. But stepmother?
I'd be interested in your thoughts. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 11:51 am | | Hi All,
Peter Birchwood feels he has ‘an obligation…to show as conclusively as possible’ the diary’s ‘true nature’ and has been informed that ‘most of the cash needed for these tests is now available’.
Since no one yet knows what tests, if any, will satisfy requirements, and what these are likely to cost, perhaps Peter could ask his informant how he/she knows that ‘most’ of the cash that will be needed is already available, and therefore how much is still to be raised.
Unless the tests show the diary was written recently, its ‘true nature’ will remain as elusive as ever. But let’s hope when Peter calls the labs this week he will encourage them to contact Paul Begg, so they can discuss with him what might be achieved and the information can be passed on to Robert. It might help if Peter and John Omlor decide between them first whether it’s McCrone or McRone – the professional touch of getting the name right is always appreciated.
Of course, if Robert does give new tests the go-ahead, he has made it clear it will be on the basis that they will be able to date the diary to within 12 or so years either way. If the results were simply to leave open the possibility of it being old, nothing would be resolved at all, and whoever funded such tests may not be too happy about it.
To be fair, there was absolutely no point in further tests on the diary all the while Melvin Harris was on the boards claiming that he had proof of who was involved in the modern forgery conspiracy, but couldn’t or wouldn’t reveal his information or sources. This was always Keith Skinner’s perfectly logical and valid point – unless or until all those with information about the diary’s true nature agreed to meet up with him and Shirley and put all their cards on the table, the controversy would roll on and nothing would get resolved. There was certainly little point spending any more time and money investigating the document itself if there was a chance that Melvin wasn’t bluffing and really did have all the aces up his sleeve.
If nothing else, one thing is now abundantly clear: Melvin’s various contradictory claims over the years as to why he can’t or won’t expose the forgers; his inability or unwillingness to test his own theory that pre-1992 Diamine was used in the diary; and his failure to allow independent experts near his claimed evidence, must finally have persuaded those on his side of the fence that reliable information about the age of this document, and its true nature, will have to come from elsewhere.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 01:56 pm | | Hi Peter B,
You said that you were 'puzzled' as to why Paul Begg's 'statement' should be passed through a third party.
If you had read the third party's post more carefully you would have seen that I emailed Paul when I saw you bring his name into the discussion in connection with these proposed new tests. I wanted to confirm, for myself, the current state of play, and when he responded to me I chose to inform the boards accordingly. I could have kept quiet and let some people continue to infer that Paul and Robert must be to blame for any delay - Paul for not bothering to try and arrange any tests, and Robert for refusing to release the diary for them - although the logic of how these two suspicions could work together escapes me.
The idea that I was passing on a statement for the boards at Paul's request is yours and is not true. I was the one who wanted to pass on Paul's response to me, and my intro made that clear.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 04:20 pm | | R.J. Old chap, lost for words?
Good lord, no!
I'll keep looking for them on the table, so long as you keep looking for them by her feet (not there) and under her head (not there either).
With respect ...
Sir Peter. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 06:36 pm | | | As I now have the information, contact numbers, names etc. needed to call McCrone Labs and as John Omlor has requested me to do this, I am perfectly happy to pass any information through to Robert Smith and to do whatever I can to bring the Diary and the testing facility together bearing in mind the caveats mentioned by Robert Smith. I don't think that I need to bother Paul Begg but if he wants to discuss this with me he has my email address and I am always happy to talk to him on the tried and true basis of speaking to the organ-grinder rather than the monkey. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 05:53 am | | Good luck Peter.
I'm glad you sorted out the proper name of the lab. The monkey doesn't need thanks for the tip. It was more than happy to oblige, and is always there if you should need it again. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Smith
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 12:09 pm | | May I restate my position? I run a busy literary agency, which leaves me very little free time. That is why I insist, as I did in my last post, that “I will not get involved in the process of investigation”. Earlier this year, I worked out a modus operandi with John Omlor for the investigation and administration of the diary testing. When he resigned for personal reasons, I agreed the same procedural process with Paul Begg, whom John approached to take over the work (apart from the fund raising). Would Peter Birchwood please, therefore, feed any information he obtains from McCrone through to Paul Begg, so that he can assess it and start the investigation process.
One of the guidelines was, that McCrone would have to come up with a full written proposal, explaining the timetable, the tests they recommend, and how such texts will enable them to date when the ink was placed on to the diary paper “within a reasonable margin of error”. My suggestion is that the dating, to be useful, should be within a maximum tolerance of 25 years (for example, 1900 plus or minus 12 years). They should also estimate the cost, so that those, who have agreed to finance the tests, will know what they are expected personally to guarantee.
I am confident, that Paul will be able to assess from the information he receives from McCrone, whether they can prove conclusively, when the diary was written. (We already have plenty of inconclusive tests at our disposal.) Only the McNeil test (part of the Rendell Report) produced a date for the writing (“a median date of 1921 plus or minus 12 years”) and that test seemed to please no-one.
Robert Smith |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 03:58 pm | | Robert Smith:
Thank you for your recent message. I appreciate that your business keeps you busy as indeed does mine, being as I am one of the few Forensic Genealogists in this country, and the only time that I appear to have free from it seems to be the time that I am involved in this sort of thing.
I understand that you have no wish to get involved in the investigation However you own the Diary and at least as far as that is concerned you presumably must see that through all of the controversy surrounding it the one hope is that forensic tests would show definitely whether the diary is of the period when it could have been written by Maybrick or outside that period which would show it to be a forgery; early or recent makes no difference. Surely the important fact here is that if the diary could be dated to say 1900 plus or minus 20 years then it could be a real Maybrick/Ripper artifact whereas if it was dated to 1950, plus or minus 20 years, then it could not.
Bearing all of this in mind I must remind you that in August John Omlor told me that he had handed over the matter of negotiation between yourself and McCrone Associates to Paul Begg. We are now towards the end of December and the word of Paul Begg is:
"I also explained several times
that I had emailed the contact several times but had
received no reply. I also told her that I had been informed
that the contact does not answer his emails and that I would
have to telephone him, but that I had not yet been able to
do so. It has been my intention to do so in the New Year."
Now if we are going to try to find a mutually-agreeable series of tests that will solve the problem of the diary dating, then there is no reason that I can see for a delay so far of over four months with a promise of making a transatlantic phone call "in the New Year."
In short, although you may wish me to organise things so that I do the work, spend the money on phone calls, take time out of my busy working life that could otherwise be spent with my wife and then hand things over to Paul Begg so that he can "assess it and start the investigation process." then I regretfully refuse. If you will only agree to work through Paul Begg then I suspect that the oft-mooted Maybrick movie will be scripted, shot, cut, premiered and sold to video before any answers come our way.
So instead, Mr. Smith I offer you another procedure: that I continue working with McCrone Associates (who from one days contact by myself seem to be rather speedier in their replies than they were with Paul Begg) to obtain details of tests that they consider appropriate to date the diary, that I put those tests before you and the general viewers of these boards and you then decide whether they have the potential to give a result. We will then have everything in the open, not covered with a confidentiality agreement and those who read these boards can see the possibilities of an answer one way or another. And of course you, Mr. Smith will not have to pay a penny of any investigation bill.
And lastly, you may consider that as someone who has on many occasions given my opinion of the diary as a recent production, I would not be considered appropriate to be involved in this matter. I can only point out that on these boards on several occasions in the past I have stated that if it can be shown that the preponderance of evidence shows that Maybrick could have written the diary I will happily agree and state my conversion in inch-tall letters.
I hope for a reasonable outcome to this discussion. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 05:06 pm | | Robert Smith:
I should also say that bearing in mind Paul Begg's recent note: "I also explained several times
that I had emailed the contact several times but had
received no reply. I also told her that I had been informed
that the contact does not answer his emails and that I would
have to telephone him, but that I had not yet been able to
do so..."
I should say that I sent an email to the contact mentioned at McCrone Associates at 5:30 this evening and he telephoned me about four hours later for a preliminary discussion. |
Author: Robert Smith
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 12:50 pm | | To Peter Birchwood
You say: “Although you may wish me to organise things, so that I do the work…”. Forgive me, but I expressed no such wish. Your intervention is entirely voluntary, and I simply gave my view that for a while anyway, Paul should be left to get on with the job, by all means with your encouragement from the sidelines. McCrone must be getting confused – first John, then Paul and now you have contacted them. The diary controversy started ten years ago, and a few more months spent investigating new tests is not significant.
If I supply the diary to McCrone, the work will be contracted on terms to be agreed with McCrone, myself, the organiser (currently Paul) and whoever would be responsible for paying the invoice. John Omlor, I believe, is still handling that aspect.
I am afraid that I can’t go along with your offer. I just do not have the time for an on-going debate on the boards. It will be up to me to decide, whether such tests are likely to end the controversy. If I am convinced, then I will supply the diary. Once I have made the decision, my reasons for that decision and the full proposal for the tests can be published openly on the boards. Similarly, under the terms of the same contract, the results of the tests would also be openly published in full.
For the time-being, I will continue to work with Paul, who, in my view, should be the sole point of contact with McCrone.
I am up to my eyes with pre-Christmas deadlines on behalf of my clients, so I must sign off now until I return on 6th January.
Robert Smith |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 01:02 pm | | Hello Robert,
Just to say that Sue and I do appreciate your work schedule.
We have over the six months or so been putting the final touches to 'Phantom' as you know.
In the meantime we have been sent three manuscripts by WW2 servicemen hoping we can read them by Xmas, suffice to say, we have not even had time to look at them yet.
So put your feet up and have a restful few days.
A&S. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 03:31 pm | | Robert Smith:
If Paul Begg contacted McCrone Associates why did he receive no reply to his emails over a 5-month period and yet when I emailed them yesterday I received within 4 hours a telephone reply directly from the person in question who was extremely enthusiastic about new tests. The call lasted for 35 minutes.
McCrone Associates aren't confused; they remember John Omlor, they are interested in talking to me but can't remember any emails from any other person.
I'm afraid that I can't go along with YOUR offer which would involve Paul Begg in the loop. I think that a 5-month delay is excessive even by diary standards.
If I am to go ahead at all in this matter it must be on the grounds that I approach McCrone Associates as I have already done, discuss matters with them and obtain details of all and any tests which they feel would conclusively date the Diary . Those tests would then be put to you and you would decide "whether such tests are likely to end the controversy."
Nice and simple and no need for the endless "debate" which tends to go on here. I have no time for that sort of nonsense. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 12:07 pm | | Hi Peter,
Robert wrote:
'If I supply the diary to McCrone, the work will be contracted on terms to be agreed with McCrone, myself, the organiser (currently Paul) and whoever would be responsible for paying the invoice.'
'For the time-being, I will continue to work with Paul, who, in my view, should be the sole point of contact with McCrone.'
Paul Begg doesn’t contribute to the message boards any more and Robert told you he has signed off until 6th January. Paul has in fact been involved for three months, not five, and he has emailed Joseph Barabe several times, as well as other people at McCrone, including Nancy Daerr. Nancy will be able to confirm that Paul has explained the situation to her and that she has in turn spoken to Joseph Barabe and passed Paul’s emails on to him.
Joseph Barabe has spoken with John Omlor, he knows what the diary is, and has been alerted to expect contact from Paul. It is hardly surprising that Paul should want his dealings with McCrone to be in writing, not over the phone, so that there is a record of what has been said, and nothing can later be denied, doubted, or bent out of shape by anyone. And in any case, Robert is expecting Paul to provide him with a written record so he can read for himself the information on which any assessments Paul makes are based. Yet Paul has yet to receive a response from Joseph Barabe.
If McCrone want a commission to test the diary, it is in their interests to respond to Paul, who was appointed by both John Omlor and Robert for the purpose. John asked you to call McCrone without checking with Robert to ascertain the current state of play, or informing him of his intention to ask for your help. You have now made contact, so if you really wanted to help nudge things along a bit, you could simply remind Joseph Barabe that he will need to respond to Paul at some point if he is interested in doing business. It’s entirely your choice, and it is quite simple, as far as I can see. Barabe either contacts Paul or he doesn’t.
But what's your tearing hurry all of a sudden? You say you have 'no time' for the endless debate that goes on here, yet you have taken an active part in the diary discussions for at least as long as I've been reading these boards - four years. And it was you who kicked off the current debate here just over a week ago, by inviting 'other readers of these boards' to 'please put your opinions here' on whether we would welcome 'new, exhaustive and definitive' tests. And then, three days ago, you talked about obtaining details of possible tests and putting them before Robert ‘and the general viewers of these boards’, so that everything would be in the open, and ‘those who read these boards can see the possibilities of an answer one way or another’.
No one is forcing you to spend a second of your time on anything connected with the diary. But instead of spending it here on the boards, trying to instigate debate which you now call the ‘sort of nonsense’ you have no time for, you could simply have expressed your concerns to Robert and Paul privately, in the first instance, and they could have let you know the score, and if they required any help.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
