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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Robert 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (11 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (5 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (3 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (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
  #4421  
Old 04-25-2018, 10:11 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Alec Voller, the Chief Chemist of Diamine Inks Ltd, was confident that the Diary ink was not Diamine.

Graham
Big deal. Voller's opinion was merely based on a brief visual examination. He conducted no tests whatsoever. So it had nothing to do with the actual chemical composition of the ink, but the fact that the ink showed slight signs of bronzing, which made him conclude it was old.

The problem is that when Baxendale, Eastaugh, and the rest of the document examiners studied the diary several years befor Voller, none of them mentioned any bronzing. Subsequent experiments conducted by Dr. Nick Warren, using Diamine ink, showed signs of bronzing in as little as 2 or 3 years.

Ergo, Voller was mistaken. The tests run by AFI showed the ink was entirely consistent with Diamine ink.

Spider: one word: Baxendale. Two other words: one off. Four words: tin match box empty. Five words: At least 20 blank pages.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4422  
Old 04-25-2018, 10:18 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
According to Levy, commenting on Blake's affidavit:

"The statute requires arsenic sold by chemists to be mixed with soot or indigo, not charcoal..."
Just for the record, this appears to be a reference to the Sale of Arsenic Regulation Act 1851:

Provision for colouring Arsenic.

No Person shall sell any Arsenic unless the same be before the Sale thereof mixed with Soot or Indigo in the Proportion of One Ounce of Soot or Half an Ounce of Indigo at the least to One Pound of the Arsenic, and so in proportion for any greater or less Quantity: Provided always, that where such Arsenic is stated by the Purchaser to be required, not for Use in Agriculture, but for some other Purpose for which such Admixture would, according to the Representation of the Purchaser, render it unfit, such Arsenic may be sold without such Admixture in a Quantity of not less than Ten Pounds at any One Time.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4423  
Old 04-25-2018, 10:28 AM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
The tests run by AFI showed the ink was entirely consistent with Diamine ink.
RJ, I believe the later tests run by Leeds showed there was no Diamine in the ink.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4424  
Old 04-25-2018, 10:51 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 356
Default

Hi Scott. I think you mean chloroacetamide. Leeds, in fact, found it on their first test. They then retried and claimed they didn't find it on the second run, and blamed the mixed results on contamination. They also claimed there was no sodium, which clashes with Eastaugh's earlier findings. So these results don't exactly inspire confidence.

"Fortunately for the truth, Robert Kuranz, the US forensic ink analyst, had retained 12 unused ink-on-paper samples taken from the Diary in Chicago (August 1993). These samples were placed in gelatine capsules (six to each capsule) and kept under optimum storage conditions. Robert Kuranz cooperated by sending over to me one of these capsules; this was then despatched unopened to the laboratories of Analysis For Industry and they were asked to test the six tiny samples for the presence of chioroacetamide.

The subsequent AFI report of 19.10 1994, concluded:-"When the six black ink dots were extracted with acetone and analysed using gas-liquid chromatography procedures chloroacetamide was indicated to be present in the ink used..."

When the AFI report was published, Mrs Harrison's publisher, Robert Smith, decided that it was opportune to become helpful. approached me and agreed to further tests. We reached an understanding that these tests would duplicate the procedures used by AFI. It was accepted that identical tests, would be staged by two laboratories, one of these being AFI once more, the other being one chosen by them.

This never happened. The agreement was violated when Mrs Harrison arranged for quite different tests to be carried out at Leeds University. The original standards applied at AFI were never matched; the results were unsatisfactory and did nothing to resolve matters. One report from Leeds first showed the detection of chloroacetamide, then its non-detection on a re-test. The reason given for this clash was that Leeds had used contaminated equipment on its first run! AFI, by contrast, had used anticontamination tests before and after every one of its recorded runs, and it had shown that its apparatus could detect the preservative at extremely low levels (at nanogram levels)

Other tests at Leeds, invoiving a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM/EDX) led to the conclusion that the Diary ink did not use Nigrosine since that "...contained sodium salts. [and] The presence of sodium was not detected in any of the materials examined" (ie The Diary ink on its own and the same ink on paper)

Following this the Diary camp used the cry of "no sodium" almost as a victory chant. And Mrs Harrison confidently wrote "...the findings... show that there is absolutely no connection with Diamine ink.. there is no chloroacetamide or nigrosine in the diary ink..." (Dec 12 1994)

She went on to state "I believe that the responsible way forward is for me to offer Analysis for Industry and Dr David Baxendale the opportunity of re-testing the ink..." superficially this was a fair offer, but, like so many statements emerging from Diary sources, it proved to be nothing but window-dressing. More than two years have passed since that letter and no attempt has been made to organise new tests. You may draw your own conclusions.

So there it was, a laboratory test stating that the lack of sodium in the Diary ink ruled out the modern Diamine product. Conclusive? Seemingly so, but my experience of Diary antics led me to dig deeper. I tried to lay hold of the earlier report by Dr Eastaugh, since he too had used an Electron Scanning Microscope. So what were his conclusions? Why were they not being used to support the verdict from Leeds?

Finding a copy proved difficult. The paths were blocked, so blocked that it was not untIl December 1996 that I managed to secure his report. Thankfully 'The Sunday Times' had retained a photocopy in its Legal Department files; and that proved bad news for the Diary people. Very bad news. This once-elusive report was eye-opening. Dr Easthaugh had tested four samples of ink taken from the Diary and his verdict negated the statement from Leeds. EACH OF HIS TESTS RECORDED THE PRESENCE OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF SODIUM IN THE DIARY INK!"
-- Melvin Harris.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4425  
Old 04-25-2018, 10:58 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 356
Default

It's also interesting to note that Alec Voller, the darling of the Diary Defenders, stated the ink contained nigrosine...which contradicts their other darling, the Leeds report. Putting it all together, I conclude that Harris and Warren were right and Barrett told the truth (on this occasion).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4426  
Old 04-25-2018, 12:52 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,339
Default

RJ,

I was only stating, with no drawing of any inference on my part, that Alec Voller was content that the Diary ink was not Diamine. I would suggest that his opinion is worth considering - after all, I suppose you yourself can tell a Ford from a Volkswagen? As far as I am aware, Voller did not go on to express an opinion as to the date the Diary was written; his opinion merely contradicted Barrett's assertion that he, Barrett, used Diamine ink to write the damn thing. I don't think that Voller is 'the darling' of the Diary defenders - all he did was to express an expert opinion when asked to do so.

As I said on another thread, for a long time I've thought that Harris was as close to the truth of the Diary's origin as anyone ever has been.

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
  #4427  
Old 04-25-2018, 01:09 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,262
Default

I try not to get involved with diary debate because im just not that committed to it but it always surprises me that its always diary defenders who are supposedly ‘biased’ whilst those who believe its a forgery (the definite majority) are apparently completely free from it. Im afraid thats not always what i see as an outsider to the debate. Im not tarring all with the same brush here but if i ever read of anything approaching vehemence in the debate it apoears to usually come from the ‘anti’ side.

Voller = bad scientist

Scientists (whose work showed against the diary) = good scientist

Mike Barrett = unscrupulous liar and forger

Mike Barrett (when saying something detrimental to the diary) = honest.

I just dont understand the vehemence. Why does it anger people that a few believe the diary to be genuine? Or that some might think it a forgery but not by Mike? A while ago someone wrote a ludicrous book claiming that the Ripper was a hero of mine Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was angry at the book at first but that was it. I know its false but i dont spend my life trying to prove it to every last person. Im just interested to know why the diary arouses such passions?

Just my opinion
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4428  
Old 04-25-2018, 05:30 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,353
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I try not to get involved with diary debate because im just not that committed to it but it always surprises me that its always diary defenders who are supposedly ‘biased’ whilst those who believe its a forgery (the definite majority) are apparently completely free from it. Im afraid thats not always what i see as an outsider to the debate. Im not tarring all with the same brush here but if i ever read of anything approaching vehemence in the debate it apoears to usually come from the ‘anti’ side.

Voller = bad scientist

Scientists (whose work showed against the diary) = good scientist

Mike Barrett = unscrupulous liar and forger

Mike Barrett (when saying something detrimental to the diary) = honest.

I just dont understand the vehemence. Why does it anger people that a few believe the diary to be genuine? Or that some might think it a forgery but not by Mike? A while ago someone wrote a ludicrous book claiming that the Ripper was a hero of mine Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was angry at the book at first but that was it. I know its false but i dont spend my life trying to prove it to every last person. Im just interested to know why the diary arouses such passions?

Just my opinion
Because the truth is important as is the passionate defense of it.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4429  
Old 04-26-2018, 03:32 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Because the truth is important as is the passionate defense of it.
I couldnt agree more Abby and i respect anyone who believes that. I suppose that part of my point is that, for example, no one gets angry that a few people believe that Sickert was the ripper, or Lewis Carroll or Francis Thompson. No suspect arouses such passion as Maybrick (through the diary of course.) Of course more people believe the diary to be genuine than people believe that Jack was Lewis Carroll but the point stands. It appears that the vast majority believe the diary to be a forgery (and overwhelmingly a modern one) so you would think that people would pretty much think ‘job done.’
Im not for a minute suggesting that debate should stop (its the purpose of the Forum) but id just ask: is anyone that believes the diary to be genuine either stupid or biased (or just genuinely mistaken?) Or is there an outside/minute chance that they might be right? Im just intrigued by why this supposedly ‘amateurish forgery’ still arouses such passions, and yes vehemence, 27 years later?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4430  
Old 04-26-2018, 03:57 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,339
Default

Did we ever get to see Keith Skinner's 'proof' that the Diary was abstracted from Battlecrease?

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
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 06:21 AM.


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