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:
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Michael W Richards 20 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by c.d. 23 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Robert St Devil 29 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Michael W Richards 29 minutes ago.
Audio -- Visual: Mention of JtR in recent episode of "The Flash" - by GUT 33 minutes ago.
Audio -- Visual: Mention of JtR in recent episode of "The Flash" - by Pcdunn 35 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (40 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (13 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (11 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (7 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (7 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (5 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
  #2721  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:00 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
'He also appears to have concluded...' May I ask for a source for the above, as you seem unsure of your ground for once? It's nothing like the conclusion Baxendale reached in his second, more detailed account of his reasoning.
Yes, the source is the Sunday Times report of 19 September 1993:

"For a document purportedly more than 100 years old, Baxendale would have expected the ink to take several minutes to begin to dissolve. In this case, says Baxendale, "it began to dissolve in just a few seconds." Baxendale concluded it had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years."
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2722  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:04 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Are you accusing Eastaugh of commenting on the solubility specifically, without actually being qualified to do so? He was quite 'clear' about this in his own mind.
Yes, exactly. In your own book he confesses to not being a qualified forensic document examiner!

Do you actually understand what he said about solubility and can you explain it to me?

Let's take his statement:

"It was clear that the solubility of the ink was similar to the Victorian reference material and unlike the modern inks dried out for reference."

How is anything about the solubility of the ink "clear" without performing a solubility test? What Victorian reference material is he talking about? What does he mean by "modern inks dried out for reference"? What modern inks is he referring to and why were they "dried out"? Unless you can answer these questions I cannot imagine why you wish to rely on such a statement.

Given that this man is not a forensic document examiner, and did not conduct an ink solubility test, why are you relying on what he says over and above Dr Baxendale?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2723  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:06 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I can't recall mentioning consistency, but you'd know more about that if you can reconcile Baxendale's 'likely... since 1945' with two or three years max.
Yes, I believe I can reconcile it. The former statement relates to his findings in connection with nigrosine. The latter statement relates to his findings in connection with solubility.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2724  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:14 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
But expecting something is not the same as knowing it beyond doubt, which is actually a point in his favour, since scientists ought never to presume to 'know' anything for a 100% certainty.
I have to remind you of a point I made earlier to you in this thread. I have not been relying on Baxendale in a positive sense to say that the diary is 100% fake.

Iconoclast asked me why I believed the diary was a modern forgery and I pointed to Dr Baxendale's findings. I only draw attention to those findings to show that my belief that the diary is a modern forgery is a perfectly reasonable one, consistent with the scientific evidence.

It ties in with other evidence too of course. I cited Melvin Harris earlier:

"In August and October 1993, independent visual examination of the Diary ink, by myself, by Dr Joe Nickell, by Kenneth Rendell, by Maureen Casey Owens and by Robert Kuranz, revealed no signs of ageing. We were all viewing a fresh, washed-out looking ink, that gave signs of having been diluted. So at that time there were six examinations that all pointed to one conclusion: the ink was new."

The Sunday Times also quoted Dr Audrey Giles as saying: "The make-up of the document can only be suspicious. There are many ink spots and smudges. These are features which in other forged documents appear to have been introduced in order to give an appearance of a soiled, well used manuscript."

I don't say that you can get 100% certainty but equally I don't think one can simply ignore or casually dismiss the findings that point to a modern forgery.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2725  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:17 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Odd really, if you now think Baxendale's could have been the first and last word on the diary's obvious modernity.
The problem is that solubility of ink must (by definition) change over time so I can't help regarding any solubility test conducted in the shortest time after production of the diary as being the most important.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2726  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:50 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Just to be clear on this, Ike, I don't agree it's 'either authentic or a hoax'. I firmly believe it to be a hoax - a spoof if you will - that was very likely never expected, nor intended, to be taken as the genuine article by whoever came across it first. If it had been found a few decades earlier, in different circumstances and with none of the Barrett 'baggage' attached, I doubt anyone would have seen it as other than a prank, created by someone with an abiding interest in the infamous 1888 ripper murders and the infamous 1889 Maybrick trial. No money motive, more like playful mischief making.

Love,

Caz
X
Apologies Caz. As soon as I read my comment in your reply I realised I had written it without thinking it through.

Cheers,

Ike
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2727  
Old 01-11-2017, 04:06 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But Caz you were suggesting that Barrett was intending to write out the text of the diary (presumably in a Victorian style handwriting), to show Doreen as if it was the actual 1888 diary of James Maybrick weren't you?
No. Once again, David, I would be much obliged if you would stick to reading what I wrote and not go off on flights of fancy concerning what you presume I was presuming.

Quote:
And this would also have to have involved him removing any traces of it being an 1891 diary too wouldn't it?
Again, no. Not if Doreen asked him anything about the physical book he already claimed to have in his possession, how he knew it was a diary from the right period, and the nature of its contents.

Quote:
So how would that not have involved Barrett presenting Doreen with a forged 1888 diary written by Maybrick?
Use your considerable imagination, David. He wanted to show her a 'taster' of what he had, before parting with his precious baby? He tried to obtain a similar book, with enough blank pages in which he could copy out a few choice phrases from the actual diary (in his own undisguised, inimitable late 20th century handwriting) so he could give Doreen a rough idea, without pretending this was anything other than his own doing?

I must say, for someone who has never met or spoken with Mike, drunk or sober (Mike, not you), and knows practically nothing about the man, you would have him do many more insane things before breakfast than anyone who can boast some real insight into his character. So I won't apologise if you find my suggestion implausible or reject it as too insane even for Mike. Now you have it cemented in place that a sober Mike could have created the diary in two weeks while standing on his head, you are stuck with only one possible explanation for his behaviour. I see that. It's just that I would actually have preferred to see some tangible evidence (obviously I'm not expecting it on this thread - or anywhere else frankly) that Mike was planning to deceive Doreen with a diary he knew to be a fake.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2728  
Old 01-11-2017, 04:46 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Caz

Could I pause for a moment in my replies to ask you to stop referring (even in parenthesis) to the "secret Battlecrease evidence" as if it is of any significance?
No. I realise why you don't find it 'helpful', but you can just keep putting your fingers in your ears and that'll be fine by me. Others might want to hear it and this is not a private conversation.

You might prefer it if I remained silent on the whole subject, but since Keith Skinner's Battlecrease documentation necessarily colours every observation I make, every response you and others ask me to give, it would not be realistic to expect me to disregard it, pretend it doesn't exist or allow it to be sidelined while I'm discussing closely related issues which are directly or indirectly affected by it.

Quote:
As far as I am concerned it doesn't exist – by which I mean that whatever it is, it cannot be regarded at this time as being of any significance nor can it be taken into account in this discussion as a point in favour of the Diary being genuine.
However did you get the impression that the Battlecrease documentation (presumably conjured up in Keith's imagination) could be considered a point in favour of the diary being genuine? Not by me, it couldn't. No wonder you are spending so much time and effort on this thread, if that's what you fear so much that you would silence me on the matter.

Quote:
Frankly, the fact you keep mentioning it reminds me of Pierre and his secret sources which are supposed to prove who Jack the Ripper was.
Charmed, I'm sure.

Quote:
I don't accept that Pierre has proof of the identity of Jack the Ripper and likewise I don't accept that you have any proof that the diary came out of Battlecrease.
Your loss, not mine or Keith's, or all the others in the know. But I rather hope Keith is not reading along as your posts are becoming just a trifle ill-mannered in your desire to see dishonesty or incompetence whenever a potential challenge crops up to views you hold dear.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-11-2017 at 04:51 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2729  
Old 01-11-2017, 04:56 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,067
Default

Quote:
Your loss, not mine or Keith's, or all the others in the know. But I rather hope Keith is not reading along as your posts are becoming just a trifle ill-mannered in your desire to see dishonesty or incompetence whenever a potential challenge crops up to views you hold dear.
Well said, Caz.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2730  
Old 01-11-2017, 05:29 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Caz, it's not about setting aside my personal conviction that Mike was "as guilty as sin" because I don't have any such conviction.
Really, David? Yet almost in the next breath you write this:

Quote:
It is the fact that Mike advertised for, sought out and purchased a Victorian diary with blank pages which itself leads me to the conclusion that Barrett must have been involved in forging the Diary. And the reason it leads me to this conclusion is that I cannot conceive of any explanation for him doing so which is consistent with innocence.

I want to stress that Caz. Even with a huge dose of imagination, I am literally unable to think of any reason why he could have placed such an advertisement if he was not planning to forge a Victorian diary.
I'm sorry to hear that, David, but I did suspect as much. I also suspect there is nowt to be done about it.

Quote:
Yes, if Barrett wasn't responsible for forging it, or involved in the forgery, then of course there must be an innocent explanation - but that's the whole point.
Yes, that is the whole point, David. And since you are the one who claims - on this thread - that Mike must have been planning to forge the diary (and by extension the Battlecrease documentation must not exist, or at least must not prove your conclusion wrong beyond reasonable doubt), the onus is on you to demonstrate that there was no innocent explanation because he was indeed "as guilty as sin". How many people do you reckon saw the writing in the diary before Mike acquired it, or before he spoke to Doreen, or before he ordered the 1891 diary? Any ideas? None? One? Two or more? You don't know, do you? You have to presume there were none, don't you? And you have the luxury for now of not knowing stuff.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-11-2017 at 05:32 AM.
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 04:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.