17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Come on, who's the other one?

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Apropos of nothing in particular folks, (and sorry if it's off the subject of the thread), what do you call an Alter Ego just slightly to the right of Genghis Khan?

Dave

[caz]

Hi Caz,

" . . . initially McNeil suggested 1921, give or take a dozen years. Eventually he settled on 'prior to 1970'. In 1995, ink chemist Alec Voller gave his professional opinion that ink met paper at least 90 years previously."

Thank you, that's the best laugh I've had this week.

Do you happen to know if it's true that the giveaway with the Turin Shroud was the "dry-clean only" label?

Regards,

Simon

Glad to oblige, old boy, but don't give yourself a hernia. If the above really was news to you, do you think it was wise of you to comment while wallowing in such woeful ignorance?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"Over done? Presumably it would have been fine then, if used but once or twice?'

It's not just a word out of place, but such a repetition. It does not sound like the Victorian documents which I have examined. But, to be fair, there is one "letter"--the one laced with unusual obscenities--which I would have miscategorised. (It's in "Letters from Hell.)

And there you have your answer. A Victorian, arsenic-eating serial mutilator's diary is 'not very likely' (to use your own phrase) to 'sound' like any other Victorian document you have examined. If anything, there are not enough obscenities, unusual or otherwise, in the diary, which makes me wonder if this was meant to be a funny little literary exercise by someone who absolutely knew how to spell 'rendezvous' etc, but chose instead to pull 'Sir Jim' down a peg or ten.

"But did you mean 'impossible' for pre-1900, or just not 'very possible'?"

The latter, but a misuse of language. Should read, "Not very likely."

Indeed, something is either possible or not possible. So I take it your original 'Very possible' for the pre-1970 date should have read: 'quite likely'?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Apropos of nothing in particular folks, (and sorry if it's off the subject of the thread), what do you call an Alter Ego just slightly to the right of Genghis Khan?

Either Ronald Reagan or Winston Churchill. What do I win?

Mike

[caz]

I don't know the following boffins. For all I know they were a job-lot from "Forgeries R Us".

There you go again, Simon. You evidently think your wit is so rapier sharp that it makes up for yet another display of your wilful ignorance.

McNeil suggested 1921, give or take a dozen years [1909 to 1932]. That obviously doesn't work, for JM popped his clogs in 1889. McNeil then compromised with pre-1970. Good grief, it could have been written before Maybrick was born. Now there's a thing.

Alec Voller next settled on 90 years for ink hitting paper [1900-ish]. Generous soul that I am this encompasses 1890 to 1910 . . . Whoops! Still no good.

So much for the scientific accuracy brought to bear upon this relatively brand-new diary.

Regards,

Simon

You keep mistaking me for someone who is trying to take the diary all the way back to 1888/9. I merely gave you two professional scientific opinions that it wasn't even 'relatively brand-new' thirty years ago.

McNeil 'compromised' once more between his initial and final estimates, when he allowed for thirty years either side of 1921 [1891 to 1951], while Voller thought '90 years plus', which is what I meant by 'at least' 90 years. So you were at fault, but hardly generous. Voller's estimate actually encompasses 1888 to 1905.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

dating

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Actually, I would not expect a chap on arsenic to see how to write in the diary--especially at night.

"So I take it your original 'Very possible' for the pre-1970 date should have read: 'quite likely'?"

I would prefer, "indeed, likely."

I would very much like to ascertain the date on this, as I take it you would. And your conjecture about the author wishing to take down Maybrick is not unsound.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Caz,

With a straight face, you present what you call 'professional opinion' from different sources that completely contradict one another, and you seem to think this amounts to evidence of something other than their collective inability to be accurate. A document that could have been written in 1970 but is at least 90 years old is a rare document indeed! All this 'evidence' means is that some care was put into the production of this forgery when it was created in the late 1980's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Actually, I would not expect a chap on arsenic to see how to write in the diary--especially at night.

"So I take it your original 'Very possible' for the pre-1970 date should have read: 'quite likely'?"

I would prefer, "indeed, likely."

I would very much like to ascertain the date on this, as I take it you would. And your conjecture about the author wishing to take down Maybrick is not unsound.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn.

Obviously the diary author didn't think arsenic was such an obstacle. Maybe that's because the real James Maybrick was corresponding by letter well into 1889 - to his brother Michael for one, hinting about getting an autopsy done on him to establish cause of death, in a Milliganesque "I told you I was sick" kind of way.

As for murder in the dark, well Maybrick isn't known to have murdered anyone. But he did nearly get his wife legally murdered, with tricks like that naughty letter to Michael.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz,

With a straight face, you present what you call 'professional opinion' from different sources that completely contradict one another, and you seem to think this amounts to evidence of something other than their collective inability to be accurate. A document that could have been written in 1970 but is at least 90 years old is a rare document indeed! All this 'evidence' means is that some care was put into the production of this forgery when it was created in the late 1980's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The point is, Tom, professional opinion has been divided from day one on when the diary was most likely written. But not one of the numerous forensic examinations has come up with a creation date more recent than 1969. Yet you, with a straight face, take this as evidence to support yet another different opinion - your own blind faith - that it was created in the late 1980s, but carefully enough to fool all the scientists but not you.

But then, don't you also believe the world was created a whole lot more recently than science tells us? How much confidence do you expect anyone to have in your personal dating abilities after that?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

But then, don't you also believe the world was created a whole lot more recently than science tells us? How much confidence do you expect anyone to have in your personal dating abilities after that?

Caz,

I love you, but... kind of mean there I think. Where's that sweet woman we all know and love?

Mike

[lynn cates]

2 Q

Hello Caroline. Thanks. Very interesting.

Do we know:

1. When he was first poisoned?

2. Precisely whom the guilty party was?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

2 A

Hi Lynn,

Nothing is really known, but many people who have studied the Maybrick case would answer:

1. When he first started dosing himself with known poisons (whenever that was).

2. See 1. above.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In my view...

It wasn't the ars'nic that sent him to Old Nick,
'Twas the stopping that got his clogs popping.

[caz]

Caz,

I love you, but... kind of mean there I think. Where's that sweet woman we all know and love?

Mike

I know, Mike, I know.

I think I turned into Ally for that one. Sorry. I'll try not to let it happen again.

But you must admit, I had a point.

Love,

Caz
X