One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Hi Sir Robert,

It was Shirley Harrison who claimed the paper clip was a fact. This is from page 215 of Ripper Diary:

It was not until halfway through the procedure that Harrison realised that the implement [used by AFI to take paper samples directly from the diary] was in fact an unravelled paper clip.

I do have to wonder if Melvin Harris ever seriously believed the ink was Diamine. It would have been so worth it, from his own point of view, to invest in the kind of test that would have put it beyond reasonable doubt. He had one shot at it, with the leftover Rendell samples. But post Leeds and Voller he just had to hope that his AFI job would be the one everyone remembered and trusted to put the tin lid on the hated diary.

When you think about it, the whole frantic "test it, test it now" spectacle of recent years was a bit of a kick in the nuts for Mel and his little effort.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

...and the chloroacetamide....from women's nail polish

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Hi Sir Robert,

It was Shirley Harrison who claimed the paper clip was a fact. This is from page 215 of Ripper Diary:

It was not until halfway through the procedure that Harrison realised that the implement [used by AFI to take paper samples directly from the diary] [I]was in fact an unravelled paper clip.

Close visual examination certainly makes it appear that she was correct.

Perhaps I am the only person outraged by this, but the audacity of taking a sample in this manner offends me. Especially since the presence (or lack thereof) of Al comes into question in some of the tests that were run. But the particular element really doesn't matter; it's the insight into the integrity of the process. And AFI's results were trumpeted up against Leeds, which was and I believe still remains one of the highest regarded labs in the U.K.

You can't make this stuff up, but unfortunately we all collectively did.

[caz]

...and the chloroacetamide....from women's nail polish

Hi Scotty,

Makes you wonder how AFI managed not to pick up any of the stuff in the paper only samples. It's been knocking around since the 1850s. It was all too easy with the ink on paper dots, as they happily showed off the contaminated 'blank' that accompanied their single positive test result.

But we still get people - good, honest people - wandering around convinced that the ink was proved to be "full of modern preservatives". So when the facts didn't suit, someone not so good or honest simply made it up and spread it around.

Love,

Caz
X

[DaveShuts]

Hello,
I hope you don't mind me chipping in.

I was always fascinated by the watch, ever since I saw the "documentary" on the diary by Michael Winner (I think).

Anyway, while the diary is highly questionable, the thing that always got me about the watch was the scientific evidence.

Surely you'd imagine that if its been examined under an electron microscope or whatever, and that there are aged bits of brass in the scratches, that it couldn't possibly be faked?

I know the watch repairer says that the scratches weren't there, but you're then arguing the evidence of an expert who has the watch in his hands right now, and the equipment to examine it properly against the memory of a watch repairer.

Not much of an argument is it?

So I guess that:

either the expert (or is it now experts) is/are wrong in their findings;

or a layman has been able to create a fake that can withstand a thorough investigation from the most sophisticated equipment, up close and personal so to speak;

or it's an amazing coincidence that someone in the past created this fake and it just so happens that the diarists chose the same person;

or the diarists heard about the existance of the watch and scratches and therefore chose the same person;

or JM was JTR, it was his watch, and he put the marks there.

Maybe I've missed some options, but if the experts findings are right, then the scratches on the watch must be old, and so what's the possibilities from there?

Thanks.

[Kaz]

Hello,
I hope you don't mind me chipping in.

I was always fascinated by the watch, ever since I saw the "documentary" on the diary by Michael Winner (I think).

Anyway, while the diary is highly questionable, the thing that always got me about the watch was the scientific evidence.

Surely you'd imagine that if its been examined under an electron microscope or whatever, and that there are aged bits of brass in the scratches, that it couldn't possibly be faked?

I know the watch repairer says that the scratches weren't there, but you're then arguing the evidence of an expert who has the watch in his hands right now, and the equipment to examine it properly against the memory of a watch repairer.

Not much of an argument is it?

So I guess that:

either the expert (or is it now experts) is/are wrong in their findings;

or a layman has been able to create a fake that can withstand a thorough investigation from the most sophisticated equipment, up close and personal so to speak;

or it's an amazing coincidence that someone in the past created this fake and it just so happens that the diarists chose the same person;

or the diarists heard about the existance of the watch and scratches and therefore chose the same person;

or JM was JTR, it was his watch, and he put the marks there.

Maybe I've missed some options, but if the experts findings are right, then the scratches on the watch must be old, and so what's the possibilities from there?

Thanks.

Good question, there doesn't seem to be a clear answer.

Easiest option is to say the experts are all 'in on it'

[Soothsayer]

Easiest option is to say the experts are all 'in on it'

Everyone's in on it. Even old Mrs Soothsayer herself, bickering away with the lamppost outside our house, accusing it of loitering (her eye sight's been going for years, but her mind ... well, let's just say it's been a tough marriage).

Tangents - they're everywhere, aren't they? Old Mrs S and I used to have some tender moments. We might be at loggerheads in the biscuit aisle of Tesco in Lower Whottlington on the Whottle, where we now abode, the atmosphere electric through fierce debate over the relative merits of Jammie Dodgers and Rich Tea, but still it would be with such fondness that I would call her my 'love crumble' and she would call me her 'wasted life's worth'. The mere thought of it can move me to tears, even now, twenty minutes later.

We are in a period of Great Calm here on the Greatest Thread of All - no toys out of prams, no hysterical whining, no endlessly pointless debating about nowt, and - perhaps by way of some explanation here fair readers - no Soothsayer.

Tangents - they're everywhere, aren't they? Been doing a five-stretch in chokey for accidentally embezzling millions from A Large UK Corporation into the coffers of Soothsayer Inc. Incorporated. Innocent of all charges, though that means nothing to the grey men with the trumped-up evidence. And the actual evidence, of course. Got out recently on a technicality - I'd cleverly put all the money in Mrs Soothsayer's name - but had to move to the relative safety of Lower Whottlington on the Whottle and change our names to Singh to avoid begging letters and hitmen in equal measure (these Large UK Corporations can be surprisingly tetchy when they lose countless millions ... or was it billions?).

Anyway, I find it calm here on the Whottle and on the worldwide web - but don't think for a moment that Soothsayer's Self-Righteous Sword of Truth has gone to sleep ... it merely rests, lying quietly awaiting its next defence of the Journal of James Maybrick, aka Jack the Hat McVitie, manufacturer of great biscuits, available from Tesco in Whottlington on the Whottle and other good retailers everywhere. Its blade is as sharp as ever, however long it has sat in its original Ronco packaging in the corner of the airing cupboard next to Mrs Soothsayer's surgical stockings (she washes them every night) - tarnished only by the reckless scratching of her initials in its silver shaft by young Susie Soothsayer when she was seven. Unfortunate initials, in truth, so ever since the only mark on its incisive and brilliant length has been a waterproof elastoplast from Mrs Soothsayer's medicine room (she's got a lot of ills, believe me).

Tangents - they're everywhere, aren't they? I'm seeing some great threads here on the worldwide internet. Take this one, 'There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia'. Slightly derivative of 'There's Something Wrong with Mary', but a great plot nevertheless. All good, solid entertainment - but cutting to the core of things? I venture not. Answering any of The Great Questions? I say nay.

Only the aged journal answers all of the questions, for only the aged journal speaks the truth. For only the aged journal has the insight which the grey man's veracity brings. Mrs Soothsayer's out there again now, arguing with the lamppost. That's an argument that can never be won, unlike the one we all know was won eighteen long years ago when Mr Maybrick's murderous musings were first brought to our attention.

The sun is out, strangely for a mid-October day in Lower Whottlington on the Whottle. Tanned gents - they're everywhere, aren't they?

[DrPL]

Although I'm new to this incarnation of Casebook, I was a regular patron before the great crash a few years ago and most posts were obliterated. There are a lot of pages to go through here and it'll take me time, but I remember one criticims of the diary is that it gives prominence to Abberline, whereas he wasn't in charge of the investigation(s) I recall (?).
IF the diary is genuine, then whomever wrote it would likely get a lot of their facts from newspaper reports, and Abberline I think appeared at the inquests making it seem as if he was the authority on the case. The writer of the diary wouldn't have known any different unless he was privy to internal police matters.

[Kaz]

Any news? Who wrote this damn diary!?

[Soothsayer]

Any news? Who wrote this damn diary!?

A little-known Liverpool cotton merchant called James Maybrick, but for Heaven's sake don't tell anyone ...

[Archaic]

Sir Soothy, old pal!

How you been? Glad to see you're back!

I've missed you tilting at windmills around here.

Archaic

[Carol]

Oh, Mr. Soothsayer,
What did we do
To make you go and leave us here
On our own, without a clue?

We've really missed your humour,
And your knowledge about Jack.
Oh, Mr. Soothsayer,
It's great to have you back!

(To be sung to the tune of 'Oh, Mr. Porter')

Love
Carol

[Kaz]

A little-known Liverpool cotton merchant called James Maybrick, but for Heaven's sake don't tell anyone ...

Of course. I'd just like to see it proved beyond "Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable"

[Sally]

Of course. I'd just like to see it proved beyond "Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable"

We may live in hope, of course...

[Soothsayer]

We may live in hope, of course...

Hope springs eternal, and the pen springs to life whenever The Great Truth needs defending. With cape and pants in man bag, you can rest assured that the righting of wrongs, etc., and the swishing of swooshy swords is never far away.

Archaic (my oldest friend), Sally, Kaz, and Carol, all ya gotta do is call and I'll be there yeay yeah yeah...