Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Elamarna 1 minute ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Elamarna 9 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 31 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Fisherman 33 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Elamarna 53 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Elamarna 60 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (30 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (27 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (2 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (2 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 05-22-2018, 11:29 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

A few things need to be clarified:

The fact that the Diary could have been aged artificially means that it cannot certainly be said to have been 80-90 years old based on Voller's examination. The factual issue of whether the Barretts had access to a sunlamp and had been told how to artificially age documents is neither here nor there bearing in mind that both things are possible and thus cannot be ruled out. As I (and others) have had cause to say before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Unfortunately Voller did not write a report but in the transcript of his meeting which we have finally been told today (and no, we were not told before today) occurred on 20th October 1995, he said the fading in the diary was "characteristic of some considerable age" but he also said that the bronzing that he saw "tells me it is genuinely old".

Although we are told (yes, told!) by the Chief Diary Defender that "Voller was talking about the fading in the diary, in connection with the sunlamp" this is not something that Voller himself says in his letter to Nick Warren of 8 February 1996, which I have already quoted from at length. In that letter he says that his opinion that the Diary was written 80-90 years earlier was "on the basis of appearances" (i.e. not specifically fading). He said he was asked if "such an appearance" could be simulated by a forger and he said that it could be done by an accelerated fading apparatus. He says that such an apparatus will "simulate the effects of five years exposure to sunlight in a matter of weeks". The only specific mention of fading is in respect of uneven fading when he says that used by an amateur it could produce "exactly the sort of uneven fading that is characteristic of old documents".

Now, as I'm sure the Chief Diary Defender knows, some formulas of iron gall inks result in writings that can turn brown quite rapidly through exposure to sunlight. In other words, sunlight can mimic the effect of oxidization of ink. So, while I can't say what Voller was thinking, I have to take into account the possibility that he was saying that the appearance of the Diary which caused him to think it was 80-90 years old included both the fading and the bronzing and that both effects could be produced by an artificial fading apparatus or UV sunlamp.

Either way it doesn't really matter because from viewing a colour photocopy of Nick Warren's 1995 test sample (and I believe it was a high quality colour photocopy obtained by Harris, not just off an ordinary machine), Voller said this in 2001:

“…the poor opacity and fading and bronzing that are apparent in your copy of Nick Warren’s letter. These are aspects that can be drastically influenced by relatively small shifts in the conditions…One factor that can strongly affect both the initial result and the subsequent behaviour of the ink, is the choice of paper and it may perhaps be that Nick’s choice was not such as to bring out the best in the ink…I agree that the ink of Nick’s letter has taken on an appearance similar to that of the Diary, as regards fading and bronzing…”

What I understand Voller was shown was a colour photocopy of Nick Warren's 1995 test sample which was made in 1998, i.e. three years after the sample was written, i.e. exactly the same number of years after 1992 when Voller examined the Diary in 1995. This colour photocopy (i.e. from 1998) is what I have already reproduced in this forum.

Both the fading and bronzing, therefore, appear to occur naturally in Diamine ink after only a few years and would have fooled Voller.

Yes it was a colour photocopy not the original but we're not doing a precise scientific experiment here. We are simply trying to get to the truth and the colour photocopy is good enough for our purposes. Voller certainly had no objection to it and felt able to express an opinion in writing based on viewing it.

The Diary Defender tries to play dumb about the fact that the nature of the ink can vary according to the type of paper used as if that helps her cause. The simple point is that Voller could easily have been fooled and his conclusion that the Diary was written 80-90 years earlier than his examination now has no value. Moreover, and crucially, it would seem that the Diary could have been written with Diamine ink because it exhibits similar characteristics to Nick Warren's test sample.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-22-2018, 11:39 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The embarrassingly desperate attempts by the Chief Diary Defender to suggest that Nick Warren created some kind of forged test sample can be ignored but what about the claim that I pointed out some "twattish behaviour" of Warren?

What actually happened is that Robert Smith claimed in his book that an anonymous letter sent to him in (he says) 1995 was written by Nick Warren (using a sample of Diamine ink). The Chief Diary Defender simply accepted this and referred to it as a sample sent to Smith by Warren. But not a jot of evidence has been provided to support the claim that it was Warren who wrote and sent the letter and Smith did not think to reproduce it in his book.

I had to point out that, as the letter is anonymous, it cannot be linked to an individual without evidence.

The point could be cleared up very simply by a copy of the letter being produced so that we can all see (a) whether it is in Nick Warren's handwriting and (b) whether it exhibits the same bluish undertones as Smith's own 2012 test sample.

No such copy has been produced despite Robert Smith being a "close friend" of the Chief Diary Defender.

What conclusions can we draw from that?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:11 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I see the Chief of Typo Police has been out on patrol today, locating the typo I carefully placed for her. It's a funny thing. Most normal people would just note an error in passing (e.g. "I think you meant to say…") but the Chief of Typo Police makes a huge performance out of it, either going on about it at length to avoid the main issue under discussion or even thinking that finding a typo in some way validates a point she is making. Oddly enough, it doesn't. But if everyone started banging on obvious typos in everyone else's emails in the way the Chief of Typo Police does we would literally be here for ever.

Nevertheless I will continue to place random typos in my posts because I do always enjoy the performance.
There's something very wrong with you.
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:21 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Given the Reign of Terror created on this forum by the Chief Inquisitor, it's hardly surprising that I was cautious before posting details of payments in respect of the Diary to living individuals, so cropped the image of the invoice from November 1993. But, equally, given the Reign of Terror, I naturally had to explain why I cropped the image. Otherwise I would have been accused of hiding something, or hypocrisy, or whatever.

Getting it wrong one way or the other would obviously have resulted in the usual downpour of smears around my head. And indeed those smears have materialised anyway even though I didn't post anything!!

I didn't, of course, say that the size of the payments revealed in the invoice would be "embarrassing" to those individuals (for some reason, the rule about quoting someone's exact words doesn't apply when it's the Chief Diary Defender posting) only that they might not appreciate me posting that information.
So why did you even mention the 'size' of those payments, if that had nothing to do with it? You may fool your fans, but you don't fool me or my cat, or anyone else who is paying attention to your choice of words.

Quote:
But, hey, why doesn't the Diary Defender-in-chief simply go ahead and post the full details of all payments relating to the Diary made to the five individuals I listed? Then I can reproduce the entire image of the invoice, safe in the knowledge that I'm not revealing any information not already in the public domain.
Because the information is not mine to post, and I can completely understand it if Keith and James have decided it's not worth the time or the effort to feed the troll.

Quote:
I look forward to seeing that happen. If it doesn't, we will know that we were seeing in her post today hypocrisy of the rankest and highest order.
See above.
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:39 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
RJ, sorry to disturb you in your cat like purdah, but do you actually understand the point that was being made about the "prophesy"?

I mean, I understand that Melvin Harris was quoted as saying in the Evening Standard of 8 December 1994 that "The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known" but he wasn't saying that they would be made known by Mike Barrett was he? I think most people assumed that HE was going to make the names known, although, in the event, he could not do so on legal advice.
Ooh, I wonder why that was?? Couldn't be because Melvin's sad old arse was likely to be sued, could it? Couldn't be because he knew he didn't have the evidence to make his sad little suspicions stick, could it?

Devereux and Billy Graham were dead, so no problem there, and Mike had 'confessed' so he had no leg to stand on. Yet Melvin was too shi* scared to go for exposure and have his pants taken down.

Pathetic.

Quote:
So what is the purpose of the word "prophesy"? Is it being said that Harris knew that Barrett was going to reveal the names? Or is it being said that Mike, having read the Evening Standard (a London newspaper) decided on that basis to reveal the names of three people as having been involved.
Mike was feeding rubbish to Alan Gray, who was feeding it to Melvin, and the dynamic duo thought it was only a matter of time before they'd get a nice sworn confession statement out of him, naming the culprits and describing the mechanics of an early 1990 forgery.

I don't know when Melvin decided Mike was lying about whose handwriting was in the diary, but he thought it was Gerard Kane's, who was known to Devereux but could never be connected to either Barrett.

Quote:
Might it not be possible that Harris simply got it right in saying that there were three people involved in the forgery which is why it matches the number in Barrett's statement?
Not according to rj, if Billy Graham gave Mike the money for the scrap book, knowing what it would be used for, as claimed in the affidavit.

Quote:
Or is it too much for someone to swallow that Harris might just have got it right?
Well someone fvcked up over the names and numbers, didn't they?

Not a straight story in sight from any of 'em.

As I say, pathetic.
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 05-23-2018 at 02:43 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:50 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
I can only imagine Mike's rage when he opened up the envelope, expecting to find a nice fat royalty cheque, and instead found an itemized list from Crew that included a £2000 payment to Albert Johnson for use of the hoaxed watch! I doubt that he appreciated the irony.
Hi rj,

Don't you think it occurred to Mike that if only he could come up with a credible confession, he'd be taking the watch and Albert with it?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-23-2018, 02:59 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
One little snippet of Devereux info is that, in his will dated 22 March 1979, having requested for all his money to be shared equally between three named women, he wrote:

"The only condition I make is that my ex-wife will not get a penny of this money as a gift, present or in any other form from the above named".

So, like Maybrick, who regarded his wife as the "whore", Devereux's relations with his wife during his marriage were evidently not good, although that is not, of course, unique to him!
How low can you go, David?

Sorry, that was a silly question!
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-23-2018, 03:15 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
So we are being told that Keith Skinner has made neither a note of his 2004 interview with Colin Rhodes nor prepared a transcript of it?
No. We are not being told that at all. I just wondered where the word 'note' came from? David made it sound like that was all there was. Poor bloke, he must be getting very frustrated that I'm the only one posting and I do not own any of the interview audio recordings and transcripts in existence.

I wonder how many times he's expecting me to repeat myself before the diary threads go the same way as the Tumblety one.

I now suspect that David doesn't want any of this material to be posted, and has therefore been doing his level best to piss off the only people who could have made it available, by being as nasty as he possibly can. I realise this must take a lot of effort on his part, so maybe I should be more sympathetic.

Or maybe not.
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-23-2018, 03:44 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
This is what Keith Skinner to me posted back on 17 February 2018:

"I have no problem with the transcript being put up for anyone who is interested in seeing it David – annotations and all. If I had the technical nous I’d put it up this evening immediately after Chelsea go through to the sixth round.

As it is, I’m afraid you’ll have to wait for a few weeks until after I have met with James, (who I hope will scan it on my behalf) and offloaded some more tapes and material on to him – including the original red/maroon/ burgundy/ Victorian diary – a black & white photograph of which can be seen between pp. 152-153 in Inside Story."


It's now 14 weeks since that statement was made which is more than "a few weeks" in my scrapbook. It's actually months. A quarter of a year!! There is no sign of it happening and there has been no sign of either Keith Skinner or James Johnston. Perhaps one of them can kindly post an update or perhaps their official spokesperson can do more than pose a question such as "could it be that they are tied up with more important things to do before they can get round to satisfying David's curiosity?". If that's genuinely the case, perhaps it could be stated positively because otherwise the answer to that question could well be "No".
Yep, it's just as I suspected. David has been going out of his way to be so unpleasant over the last 'quarter of a year', that nobody with any kind of life would now drop everything to provide more material that he will inevitably reject because it won't support his idee fixe concerning the diary's origins.

I don't believe David is really that thick, so it has to be deliberate. And he will no doubt blame anyone but himself for the lack of any overwhelming desire to satisfy his feigned curiosity.
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-23-2018, 03:52 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Keith's failure to post the transcript of the Diary prepared by the Barretts has been explained in this very thread by him and/or James being too busy to do so. Or, at least, I have been asked by their official spokesperson to consider this possibility!
How many times is David planning to whine about the continued absence of Keith and James from the boards? Doesn't he know I have them both trussed up in my attic, to make sure they can't give him what he pretends to crave?
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.