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:
Ripperologist: Ripperologist 161 April/May 2018 - by Ginger 1 hour and 2 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by GUT 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by GUT 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by packers stem 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by MrBarnett 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by GUT 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (18 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: What EAR/ONS teaches us about JtR - (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
  #4741  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:22 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Clearly the Chief Diary Defender has no interest in asking her "close friend" to assist in getting to the truth regarding either the anonymous letter received by Robert Smith or his 2012 test sample for which there is no evidence that it was actually written in pre-1992 Diamine ink. I never thought for one moment that Smith was reading these posts but I would have thought his "close friend" would ask him for more information and a copy of the anonymous letter, a letter for which, at present, no evidence has been produced that it was written by Warren, something which seems to be nothing more than an assumption on Smith's part in his 2017 book – and we know that Smith makes a number of errors in that book. But perhaps Smith's "close friend" has no interest in establishing facts and much prefers to rely on speculation and assumptions about these matters.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4742  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:24 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

It's perfectly true that the little red diary doesn't prove anything at all. It's the undisputed fact that Mike, in March 1992, was seeking a used or unused Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages which is the salient point and, as no sensible reason has ever been produced for Mike to have wanted such a diary at this time period, other than to create a forged Victorian diary, we can all draw our own conclusions as to why he was wanting to forge a Victorian diary in March 1992.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4743  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:29 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

If the Diary's text was created in the summer of 1991 then it most certainly was "left a while" if it was actually transcribed in March/April 1992.

I don't think it's very complicated as long as we work on the basis that Alan Gray drafted Mike's affidavit based on what Mike told him (and that 1990 was a typo for 1991).

In that scenario, Alan Gray believed that whole thing was done while Tony was still alive but he had misunderstood, because when Mike told him that the diary was written in 1991, he did not mean "transcribed", he meant "drafted [in draft]". Gray certainly thought that the 11 day period of transcribing the diary was in 1991 but, had he known that the red diary was purchased in March 1992 (something which, in the affidavit narrative, occurs in 1991), he would have surely questioned Mike further. In which case he might have got to the bottom of the matter.

The only time Mike refers to the 11 days is in this sentence:

"Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline."

Tony is not mentioned at all here. But Alan Gray, thinking that this "writing" was the same as the drafting of the diary and thus believing that the 11 days was in 1991 when Devereux was still alive, then included this sentence:

"During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990 [should be 1991]."

But I am suggesting that while Mike did say this to Gray, he was there talking about "drafting" not "transcribing" but it is what has understandably confused Gray. Even while I am typing this, trying to communicate the difference, it's obvious that the word "writing" is ambiguous and confusing.

Just think about it. Mike was drinking very heavily at this time and probably rambling for much of it. Gray has to do his best to construct a coherent narrative from what Mike is telling him while keeping the affidavit in Mike's own words as much as possible. Mike probably isn't terribly interested in checking the facts or giving any great thought to the chronology of events, a chronology which he clearly messes up in the affidavit (e.g. the date of purchase of word processor etc.) although every single time that the affidavit is referred to by the Chief Diary Defender these other dating errors in the chronology are simply ignored.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4744  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:33 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

A passage from Melvin Harris's letter to Voller seems to have been misunderstood. Let me re-post it with a different emphasis:

"By late 1998 I saw signs of irregular fading and bronzing. Since then the bronzing has increased to the extent that, today, the portion written with a steel pen is dramatically bronzed. Bronzing in the heavier, fountain pen section is not so dramatic and is uneven. I have taken this letter to colour-copying firms but all the fine details are far too subtle for the machines to pick up fully, nevertheless they have managed to capture enough of the bronzing effect to let you see the proof for yourself."

Nick Warren used two different pens to write the sample. A Victorian steel pen and a new clean fountain pen. It was the bronzing of the sample written with the steel pen which had increased in 2001 to the extent that it was "dramatically" bronzed. The bronzing with the fountain pen section was not so dramatic.

So bronzing is affected by the pen used as well as the paper. If there is no dramatic bronzing to be seen in the Diary it might simply mean that it wasn't written with a Victorian steel pen. That's all.

I don't think it's very difficult. Voller saw the colour copy (which I think was made in 1998 but if I'm wrong about that was certainly created at some point between 1998 and 2001) and said that the bronzing was similar to what he saw in the Diary in 1995. What's hard to understand about that?

No-one is saying that this means the ink in the Diary must definitely be Diamine, only that it could be. It just can't now be ruled out on the basis of Voller's visual examination of the Diary in October 1995. If that's controversial I must be missing something.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4745  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:41 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

It is certainly true that Baxendale's statement that synthetic dyestuffs such as Nigrosine were not used before the First World War could have been better worded in respect of a caveat but the point is, firstly, that it is clear that Baxendale was saying that information about the use of such dyestuffs was scarce (thus showing he was not an expert on the subject) and secondly that, in a published book, his actual words on this point were removed by Robert Smith in their entirety, from a report which was not publicly available, without any indication by Smith that he had removed those words. I can't see how that can possibly ever be defended. Yes, we know that Baxendale was wrong about the history of Nigrosine but the non sequitur being pushed is that because he was wrong about that one thing his entire report loses credibility and can be ignored. That simply cannot be true of someone who was, in 1992, a very experienced document examiner, the very first person that Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison went to for an expert opinion!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4746  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:08 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

It's quite an odd experience to see myself being asked to explain something for which I've already provided an explanation in a post that someone is purportedly responding to, with that explanation being ignored.

"So perhaps I can leave it to David to explain how the ink went from dark grey to dark grey with bluish undertones then back to dark grey again, and why Voller was so sure the ink wasn't his own nigrosine based Diamine, which would have looked "blacker"".

Did I not already provide an explanation for this when I said:

"Yes, it may have been dark grey, but in Voller's mind, dark grey with bluish undertones, hence he established the presence of Nigrosine.

Or perhaps Voller was one of those colour blind men that we have been warned about."


An obvious possible mistake is to assume that Voller's definition of "bluish undertones" is the same as Baxendale's.

But we have been given a new alternative answer as to why Voller made no mention in October 1995 of the absence of bluish undertones in the Diary, namely that Diamine ink, due to its level of Nigrosine, would not have produced bluish undertones.

Hence:

"Could it be that the level of nigrosine in any ink will determine whether bluish undertones are visible or not? Might Voller have known this, but had some other way of recognising a nigrosine based ink that was not his own Diamine"?

This, of course, gets really confusing because we are being told that Robert Smith's test sample of Diamine ink DID produce visible bluish undertones. So if Diamine ink would be expected to produce such undertones, how to explain Voller's silence on the subject when he didn't mention seeing any when examining the Diary and ruling out it being written with Diamine ink (while accepting it was a Nigrosine based ink).

You see the new explanation doesn't really cut the mustard because here is what Voller said in his letter to Nick Warren dated 21st November 1994 about the bluish undertones:

"Your observation concerning the visual impression of Diamine MS ink is quite correct".

Pausing there, that's quite impressive for a "twat" to make that correct observation. Voller continues:

"Nigrosine, although a black dyestuff, does have bluish undertones and this is all the more obvious when the dyestuff concentration is relatively low. More about this later."

Then, later in his letter he says:

"Diamine MS ink, in common with many genuine Victorian black inks and with Modern Registrars/Recorders inks is a 'Ferrogallous' ink. This is why previous analyses have revealed the presence of iron. Inks of this type contain Ferrous Sulphate, Gallic Acid and Tannic Acid and upon exposure to light and air, these react to produce Ferric Gallotannate which is a sort of black pigment which has essentially permanent lightfastness, is more or less totally resistant to any reasonable form of chemical attack and in the process of its formation, causes the ink to become deeply etched into the paper. Since the black colouration of the Ferric Gallotannate takes a little while (24 hours or more) to fully develop, it is necessary to incorporate a small quantity of some conventional dyestuff purely as a 'sighting' colour so that you can see what you are writing. Hence my earlier remark about the low concentration of Nigrosine".

I read Voller there saying (as I mentioned in an earlier post in fact) that Diamine ink has a low concentration of Nigrosine which should, therefore, mean that there are obvious bluish undertones to the ink.

That being so, it remains a mystery why Voller did not rule out the ink being Diamine on the basis of the absence of bluish undertones when he saw it in 1995, while confirming that it was a Nigrosine based ink, yet not saying that it must be an ink with a high concentration of Nigrosine.

Far from saying the ink should be bluer in October 1995, he said it should be blacker. But, as I keep saying, Nick Warren's test sample from 1995 written with pre-1992 Diamine formula ink, looks very similar in colour to the Diary not blacker at all - so Voller just seems to be wrong about what the ink should have looked like.

He might have been the chief chemist at Diamine but, hey, he was no doctor!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4747  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:18 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

It is true that Robert Smith claims in his 2017 book that the ink in the anonymous 1995 letter is, in his view, "identical" to the ink in his own 2012 test sample. But then again Smith says a lot of things in his book which have turned out on close inspection to be wrong. Just look at my article "Robert Smith and the Maybrick Diary: The False Facts Exposed!" for some examples.

http://www.orsam.co.uk/maybrickthefalsefacts.htm

Smith has not produced a copy of the 1995 anonymous letter for inspection so we don't actually know if it really is identical.

But, if it is, I have already provided one possible explanation namely that both the 1995 anonymous letter and Smith's 2012 test sample were written with POST-1992 Diamine ink. In which case, one would expect them to look identical.

In this respect, I note that the unlabelled bottle of ink sent to Shirley by Voller in 1995 went missing for 16 years before supposedly turning up in an attic in 2011. But how can Smith be certain it was the same bottle with the same contents?

I have already asked this question. I'm still waiting for an answer and it looks like I could be waiting for ever.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4748  
Old 05-24-2018, 02:47 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
If Baxendale found nothing to suggest the presence of iron then that is the fact of the matter. It was perfectly proper for him to report that (absence of) finding. He did NOT say that there was no iron in the ink.
Yes, you said this before, David. I seem to recall you suggested Baxendale may not have been equipped to detect iron in ink, in which case it would have been a foregone conclusion that he would find nothing to suggest its presence, and it would only have been right and proper to point this out to Robert Smith, so he would not be misled into thinking Baxendale was equipped to detect it, looked for it and found none.

That would have been the equivalent of Mrs Mop reporting back to her employers that she had found nothing to suggest the presence of dust or grime in their recently acquired holiday home, but neglecting to mention she had not brought a mop, duster, polish or her specs with her.

But now we get another story, this time from a note made by the fragrant Melvin Harris, based on what Baxendale himself allegedly told him:

Quote:
Here is some very important information which may never have been published before - I've certainly never seen it. It's an extract from a note by the late Melvin Harris based on what he had been told directly by Dr Baxendale (underlining in original):

"When Dr. Baxendale made the first examination of the diary ink it looked so new to him that he didn't even bother to make a chemical test for iron. As he explained to me, he made a visual examination of the ink only and since it showed not the slightest trace of age-bronzing, concluded, rightly, that it could not possibly be an iron-gall ink laid down some 104 years ago. His solvency test, a perfectly valid test in experienced hands, took him by surprise; "The pigments dissolved in distilled-water within seconds", he told me. This should not happen with a century-old gallotanic ink."
So apparently, Baxendale 'didn't even bother' to test for iron, which implies he was equipped to make a chemical test for it, but couldn't be arsed because he'd already reached a conclusion from his visual examination. Did he make that clear to Robert, or did he let him think that his use of Thin Layer Chromatography to examine the ink would have found the presence of iron, as well as Nigrosine, had any been in the ink? One also wonders why Baxendale's solvency test result took him by surprise then, if it merely supported what he already believed. But 'this should not happen' is not quite the same as saying 'this could never happen', is it?

Was this more a case of Mrs Mop reporting back to her employers that she had found nothing to suggest the presence of dust or grime, but neglecting to mention that she'd brought all the equipment with her but sat on her fat arse with a fag and a cuppa because it all looked clean enough to her already without her specs on?

Quote:
Baxendale's area of expertise was forensic document examination. He had a lot of experience in the subject. This is why he was chosen by Smith and Harrison, above all others, to examine the diary. He remains, in fact, the only forensic document examiner to have examined the diary. He concluded that it was a modern fake. People don't like this result so they try to smear him. But that is what he concluded and, hey, who knows, maybe he was correct!
Who the hell needs to try?? With David around and dragging Melvin out of his grave to help, poor old Baxendale is now between a rock and a hard place.
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4749  
Old 05-24-2018, 03:40 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Ultimately the issue of whether Robert Smith's 2012 sample has bluish undertones or not is irrelevant. The reason for this is that we have Nick Warren's contemporary sample, written with Alec Voller's Diamine Ink, dated 26 January 1995.

I posted an extract from this sample and I don't think there can be any doubt that it looks similar to the Diary ink.

But you don't even have to take my word for it or question the quality of the photograph (itself a desperate tactic) for we have Melvin Harris saying, as I quoted yesterday, but which has, so far, been ignored:

"Nick in the enclosed letter even comments on this saying “…the effect is very watery, astonishingly so at first.” Indeed the Diamine ink I have seen is so close to the ink on the Diary pages that I regret that Smith and Harrison did not take your advice and write something down on a blank page back in January 1995. "

(NB. my original transcription of "your Diary pages" was wrong and should have been "the Diary pages")

Harris was, here, enclosing a colour copy of Nick Warren's sample for Voller's inspection and saying that it was "so close to the ink on the Diary pages". As we know, Voller commented in 2001 that the sample was indeed similar to the Diary ink (and I am paraphrasing there).
The difficulty with this is that Melvin didn't have the original diary pages in front of him in order to make a fair comparison. At best he'd have been relying on the smaller black and white facsimile in Shirley's book to compare directly with the colour copy of Warren's sample, and his memory of what the actual, full size diary pages had looked like when he saw the diary, briefly, at the book launch in 1993. To my knowledge this was the only occasion Melvin ever saw it.

Similarly, in 2001, Voller would have been relying on his memory of how the ink on the diary pages had appeared six years previously, in 1995.

Quote:
Yet, Warren's 1995 sample does not look very much like Robert Smith's 2012 sample.
No, it certainly doesn't.

Quote:
I do not claim to be able to explain this but might I suggest that, as the bottle of ink went missing for 16 years, it may be that the bottle that was found in an attic in 2011 might not actually have been the same sample provided by Voller in January 1995.
Of course. Shirley was bound to send Robert a bottle of any old ink she had found, assuming it to be one of the two which Voller had sent to her.

And Robert was bound to accept that this bottle was the right ink.

And the anonymous letter he received in 1995, referring to 'Diamine ink' wasn't written in the Diamine ink Voller sent to Warren, but just happened to look 'identical' on the page to whatever ink Shirley had found in the attic and sent to Robert.

Quote:
Perhaps it was a bottle of post-1992 Diamine which had been purchased from the Bluecoat Art Shop and which Shirley confused herself in 2011 into thinking was Voller's recreated pre-1992 sample.
What's that supposed to mean? I don't recall Warren sending Shirley any of the ink he had bought in 1994 from the Bluecoat shop, but if he did, would it not have had a mass-produced printed label on it, and been easily distinguished from the four bottles Voller made up specially for Warren and Shirley to the previous formula, which he presumably labelled himself?
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4750  
Old 05-24-2018, 04:21 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Here is some very important information which may never have been published before - I've certainly never seen it. It's an extract from a note by the late Melvin Harris based on what he had been told directly by Dr Baxendale (underlining in original):

"When Dr. Baxendale made the first examination of the diary ink it looked so new to him that he didn't even bother to make a chemical test for iron. As he explained to me, he made a visual examination of the ink only and since it showed not the slightest trace of age-bronzing, concluded, rightly, that it could not possibly be an iron-gall ink laid down some 104 years ago. His solvency test, a perfectly valid test in experienced hands, took him by surprise; "The pigments dissolved in distilled-water within seconds", he told me. This should not happen with a century-old gallotanic ink."
One more thing - where is Baxendale's claim to have examined the diary 'line by line for signs of bronzing' [or words to that effect], which I seem to recall from one of rj's posts quoting Melvin?

It's not in the above extract, so where and when did Baxendale tell Melvin this? We were led to believe that he had scoured all 63 pages for bronzing and found none. But if he couldn't even be arsed to find the iron, which we know was in the diary ink, because it looked 'so new' to him, why should we believe he could be arsed to hold the diary up to the window and search in vain through the entire document, line by line, for the kind of very slight, barely visible bronzing, which Voller would observe in one or two places in 1995?
__________________
"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 07:47 PM.


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