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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 5 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 5 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 5 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - by Herlock Sholmes 6 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 7 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - by Pcdunn 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (26 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (3 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Jack the Poet - (2 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (1 posts)
Neil, P.C. John: Running towards me without a hat, which raised my suspicions!!! - (1 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
  #2711  
Old 01-06-2017, 02:02 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
What, because he didn't say "I've got James Maybrick's diary"? Let's play this one out:

Assistant: How can I help you?
Williams: I've got James Maybrick's diary, would you be interested in seeing it?
Assistant: Er ... not really. Thanks for your call. [Hangs up]

I'm sure I've missed your point, but it was good fun, and I'm off to watch the rest of 'Ghost Protocol' with the very long-suffering love of my life ...

PS I meant it when I said I'd enjoyed the exchanges, though, David! :-)
Yes, you have "missed" my point, as you well know. I'm glad you have enjoyed the exchanges.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2712  
Old 01-10-2017, 05:07 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I'm pretty sure I had a Kindle copy...

As you were! My mistake; what I meant to say was that I used my copy for kindling.
Ouch, Gareth! Double ouch! What was so dire about Ripper Diary - The Inside Story then? You are the first person I think I have ever seen dissing all our hard work to this degree. And I didn't have you down as a book burner. You could have given it to a charity shop, no?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2713  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:18 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
...(by the way, I agree with Caz that the journal is either authentic or a hoax - it cannot be a forgery as it makes no attempt to mirror Maybrick's known formal handwriting)...
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
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2714  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:34 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,051
Default

Hi Caz,

am not up to clambering around to lay hands on my Ripper books at the moment, but wasn't someone doing the rounds, shortly after her trial, with a diary (or diaries), purported to have been written by Florence Maybrick? Why does the name Stewart Cumberland come to my mind?

Cheers,

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
  #2715  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:50 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
So (as I also asked you) none of the "shortcomings" have anything to do with the ink solubility test? Doesn’t that make them of no relevance to the issue of ink solubility - unless you are saying that Baxendale was incompetent to carry out an ink solubility test. Is that what you are saying?
No - read what I actually wrote, David, rather than what you imagine I may have meant. I went into some detail to explain, using plain English in common usage, the potential problem with Baxendale's apparently one-off personal interpretation of his ink solubility test result. Dr. Nick Eastaugh reported that it was 'clear' to him, when conducting his own tests just a short while after Baxendale, that the ink's solubility was similar to his Victorian reference material. So there's a 'clear' unresolved discrepancy here, and I don't know if Baxendale reached his conclusion that 'an exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945' (which sounds to me quite unlike 'recently' penned, as in barely dry when he did the test in 1992) from comparing the solubility with a range of documents of known ages, or was merely expecting a Victorian ink to be far less soluble.

So no, I was saying nothing about the competency of Baxendale, Eastaugh or my cat to 'carry out an ink solubility test'.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-10-2017 at 08:55 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2716  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:53 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Hi Caz,

am not up to clambering around to lay hands on my Ripper books at the moment, but wasn't someone doing the rounds, shortly after her trial, with a diary (or diaries), purported to have been written by Florence Maybrick? Why does the name Stewart Cumberland come to my mind?

Cheers,

Graham
This all rings bells, Graham, although the details are rather fuzzy round the edges at the moment and I too am not up to 'clambering around' to look it up. Maybe tomorrow...

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2717  
Old 01-10-2017, 09:31 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
1. Baxendale, an experienced forensic document examiner, carried out an ink solubility test in the summer of 1992 and concluded that "the ink was found to be freely soluble, and I would have expected an ink applied to paper about a hundred years ago to be far less soluble, due to the effects of slow oxidation and other long term chemical reactions." He also appears to have concluded that the ink had been applied to the paper recently, within the previous two or three years. As far as I am aware, this conclusion remains unchanged.
'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.

Quote:
2. Eastaugh, who confesses to not being a forensic document examiner, did not carry out an ink solubility test so his conclusions about solubility (whatever they were) are unclear and not understood.
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.

Quote:
3. You comment that Baxendale has stated that "the book" was manufactured in the late 19th century. It is not in dispute that the scrapbook is an old book.
Not by you, perhaps, but you should have seen some of the efforts over the years to push the guard book forcibly into the 20th century.

Quote:
4. You also comment that Baxendale said that he would have expected ink applied in 1889 to be "far less soluble". Is that not consistent with his findings as set out in his report?
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. 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 would have expected you to grasp many more of the points I have been making than you appear to grasp, but I'd be wrong. Or are you more concerned with trying to score linguistic points over me than addressing the real issues, such as how Mike expected his 'creation' to defy all attempts to date stamp it '1992'?

Quote:
5. You also say that Baxendale conceded that if such a document were found to have a similar solubility, "there would appear to be nothing in the chemical properties of the ink in the Diary to preclude it being of similar age". But no-one is saying that there is anything in the chemical properties of the ink inconsistent with it being from 1888. The question is about solubility.
Don't blame me, David. It was Baxendale who wrote that in the context of the ink's solubility. Maybe he just wasn't in your league when it came to consistency and sticking to the point.

Quote:
Is there a document from the nineteenth century with "similar solubility" to that of the Diary? If so, what is it? If not, why does Baxendale's finding from his report (as set out in para 1 above) not stand?
Unless Eastaugh was making it up, it was 'clear' to him that the inks from his Victorian reference material demonstrated a similar solubility to the diary ink.

Quote:
Ultimately, one can either accept what the expert says or try to find a loophole...
That's unfair and unworthy of you. In the scientific world one should never 'accept' what the first expert says without others being able to repeat the tests, get the same results and reach the same conclusions. Asking for a second, third or fourth opinion won't guarantee a loophole if there isn't one, will it? You should have seen all the demands a few years back for 'more tests - new tests - do them now!' by one particularly vocal and pedantic modern hoax conspiracy theorist. He wasn't content with one opinion or twenty. He wanted as many as it took to get the desired result. Odd really, if you now think Baxendale's could have been the first and last word on the diary's obvious modernity.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-10-2017 at 09:41 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2718  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:47 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Hi Caz,

am not up to clambering around to lay hands on my Ripper books at the moment, but wasn't someone doing the rounds, shortly after her trial, with a diary (or diaries), purported to have been written by Florence Maybrick? Why does the name Stewart Cumberland come to my mind?

Cheers,

Graham
I don't know if he had anything to do with the Maybrick trial, but Stuart Cumberland was a thought reader, there's an interview with him in the Evening News 10th Nov 1888 about how he might find Jack.

http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881110.html

Last edited by Joshua Rogan : 01-10-2017 at 11:11 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2719  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:51 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
No - read what I actually wrote, David, rather than what you imagine I may have meant. I went into some detail to explain, using plain English in common usage, the potential problem with Baxendale's apparently one-off personal interpretation of his ink solubility test result. Dr. Nick Eastaugh reported that it was 'clear' to him, when conducting his own tests just a short while after Baxendale, that the ink's solubility was similar to his Victorian reference material. So there's a 'clear' unresolved discrepancy here.....
So no, I was saying nothing about the competency of Baxendale, Eastaugh or my cat to 'carry out an ink solubility test'.
I certainly did read what you wrote Caz and I noted that you were ignoring a number of important factors.

1. Dr Eastaugh did not conduct a solubility test on the diary's ink.

2. Dr Eastaugh is not, in any event, an expert in questioned document examination. He is an expert in the scientific and art technological study of paint and paintings.

3. What Dr Eastaugh said about the solubility of the diary's ink is not understood (or able to be understood) and is not based on a solubility test.

4. Dr Baxendale is an expert in questioned document examination and he did conduct a solubility test on the diary's ink.

In view of the above, I find it quite extraordinary that you regard Dr Baxendale's conclusions regarding the solubility test as nothing more than his "personal interpretation". It is the opinion of the expert on this case who conducted a solubility test within months of the discovery of the diary. I fail to see how you can be doing anything other than questioning his competence.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2720  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:55 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I don't know if Baxendale reached his conclusion that 'an exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945' (which sounds to me quite unlike 'recently' penned, as in barely dry when he did the test in 1992) from comparing the solubility with a range of documents of known ages, or was merely expecting a Victorian ink to be far less soluble.
Wasn't this "originated since 1945" quote, that you have mentioned for the first time in this discussion said by Baxendale purely in the context of there being nigrosine in the ink?

In other words, it was on that basis that he concluded that the diary must have originated since 1945.

But it's separate from his findings about solubility isn't it? So bringing up that particular quote is, I think, only going to serve to confuse the issue.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 09:06 PM.


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