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:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by caz 54 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Trevor Marriott 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by caz 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (36 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (10 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (5 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (3 posts)
General Discussion: What Would an "Investigation" Consist of? - (3 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: The East End Conference 2018: London - (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
  #4751  
Old 05-24-2018, 04:51 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
And, incidentally, I don't recall saying that I photographed the original letter written by Nick Warren.
Okay, so what exactly did David photograph recently? Does he know? Has he posted what he does know about it? It often takes me a couple of weeks or more to catch up with everything because, unlike the obsessive, I can't sit here waiting to pounce on every post on the same day it appears.

If David photographed a photocopy of the original letter, or another photograph, or even a copy of a copy, does he know how old the original letter was when his recently acquired image of it was first made?

And I'd love to know why posting the image has not so far proved just a very amateurish exercise in futility.
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 05-24-2018 at 04:53 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4752  
Old 05-24-2018, 05:24 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The same questions could be asked of any hoaxer at any time, Caz. Chances are, whoever wrote the diary just found these Crashaw poems in books. The biographical links and the Times Crossword bit strike me as being the same kind of curious coincidence whether we're talking about Mike or a non-Mike hoaxer.

To turn your question on its head: "Why would a non-Mike hoaxer even be looking for details of Crashaw's life and works to begin with?"
Sincere apologies for the delay in replying, Gareth. I've been stuck in the bog a lot lately.

I strongly suspect our hoaxer knew their stuff on Maybrick and Crashaw before deciding to write their funny little spoof, turning the former into saucy Jacky, with his "Confessions of a Crashaw Quoting Arsenic Eater".

I have never been persuaded by the argument that Jack came first and the hoaxer then set about the onerous and risk-filled task of finding someone to squeeze into his boots and solve a century-old mystery, not having the ghost of a clue in advance what their research - and other people's in future years - might or might not throw up. How many potential rippers did they look at before settling on Maybrick? Was he the first and only? Why did they settle on him at all?

I'm all for reducing the number of curious coincidences, especially of the type we see in the hoaxer's decision to have "Sir Jim" spout godawful poetry and, of all the poets in all the world throughout history, to have him quote Crashaw. There was a rhyme and reason for doing that, which had nothing to do with coincidence.

And that's without the hoaxer's luck that floorboards were lifted in "Sir Jim's" old bedroom on the very day his diary got its first known mention when Mike Barrett gave London a call.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 05-24-2018 at 05:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4753  
Old 05-24-2018, 06:59 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Regarding the Crashaw quote and the Sphere book, I can't confirm the truth of any of this, but this is what appears in what is, I assume, a previously unpublished note by Melvin Harris:

"A book and other documents that were "evidence" were mentioned to private detective Allan Gray by Mike Barrett, at the beginning of August 1994. No title was given. Mike also mentioned that he had left his "evidence" with his solicitor. At that time Gray took just passing notice of this claim. He is not a Ripperologist, and at that juncture he was simply employed to trace Anne and Mike's daughter . But in the first week of September Mike extended his engagement and asked Gray to help him "prove" his forgery claim so that the story could be sold to a newspaper...
Yes, this one rings loud bells. I could have sworn rj recently suggested it was an invention on the part of Keith Skinner and/or myself that Mike had ever asked for Alan Gray's help to "prove" his own forgery claims, because it presumably made no sense to rj either, that Mike would have needed a private detective's help to prove it, if he had really been involved in forging the diary.

Quote:
...He said that his earlier actions could dry up the royalties and he wanted some compensation for this. It was at that point that Mike first NAMED the book as a " 'Sphere' book about poems". Let me underscore this: this partial naming took place in the FIRST WEEK of September 1994. His disclosure of the location of the Crashaw lines to Mrs Harrison, did not take place until much later, on 30th September. But he had earlier said to Gray that he had kept the book "up his sleeve". He had not told the Liverpool reporter about this book, since they "wanted everything for nothing" and made no offer to pay anything at all. Here let me register that Allan Gray will back this up with a statement meant for publication."
Yes, Melvin made a similar claim on the message boards in April 2002, which we refer to in Ripper Diary [see pages 252 to 255 for more details]. We also refer to a taped conversation between Mike and Alan Gray, on 7th November 1994, which indicates that the latter was hearing about the Crashaw quote, and Mike's claim to have lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor, for the first time, although Gray explained to us in 2003 that nobody at that time, including Melvin Harris, had ever mentioned that it could be of great importance. This makes nonsense of the claim that Mike had mentioned the Sphere book to Gray in early September, in connection with the new brief and the "evidence" he supposedly already had to prove his forgery claims, and told him he had kept this book "up his sleeve". How could Gray have remembered this detail and related it to Melvin at some later date, if it hadn't registered enough with him at the time to ring any bells when Mike brought up the subject two months later? And if the claim came from Mike... nuff said. But I'm not sure if Melvin and Mike ever communicated directly.

Of course, I don't think Gray ever did 'back this up' in any published statement, nor is it easy to imagine quite how he could have done. Mike only finally produced a tatty, obviously used copy of the Sphere book on 6th December 1994, and there never was any evidence that he had lodged this previously with his solicitor or kept it literally "up his sleeve". He found the quote in a library book at some point after his initial forgery claim, then presumably managed to track down and purchase the copy he handed over to Gray in the December. There was no record of Mike attending the offices of his solicitor between 25th August 1994 and 9th January 1995; no record of the Sphere book being lodged or withdrawn on any date; and no recollection of this happening in the event, considered unlikely by Mike's solicitor, that no record had been made on either occasion.
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 05-24-2018 at 07:07 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4754  
Old 05-24-2018, 07:51 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kattrup View Post
I think, from what he normally posts, that the failure to admit mistakes is one of the chief characteristics that David Orsam dislikes. It’s intellectually dishonest.

So I don’t think it’s very uncharacteristic of him to admit human fallibility, I rather think the opposite, that’s one of his objectives: everyone makes mistakes. It’s only failure to admit such that is a real mistake.
Hi Kattrup,

What do you make of David's recent claim to be peppering his posts with deliberate typos in the hope that I will gleefully rush in to point them all out and support his claim that I suffer from a mental illness? Isn't that not only intellectually dishonest and rather puerile, but also morally repugnant?

It may be a great way of not having to admit any mistakes he makes accidentally, now or in the future, on the subject of the diary, because he can simply tell people he was trying to bait someone he thinks is mentally ill - even though I shan't be taking the bait.

But the downside is that anyone not aware of his funny little experiment will assume he's careless at best, thick at worst, or - when it comes to deliberately getting something like a date or year wrong - serving up misinformation, accidentally on purpose.

It's a funny old world, if that kind of debating tactic is considered not only sane, but perfectly acceptable, or even praiseworthy.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 05-24-2018 at 08:03 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4755  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:23 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I would suggest it is a good practice to read all the posts in a thread before replying to one in case there has been any additional information.

In this case, in respect of Baxendale's findings in respect of iron, I have already added a note by Melvin Harris entitled "SOME INKY FACTS" which contains this passage regarding Baxendale (my bold):

"What he actually wrote was “There is nothing to suggest the presence of iron” but this was a verdict based on an optical examination in which he found not the slightest trace of age-bronzing. This is made plain by later words, which read: “It is not obviously an iron-based ink….there is no sign of such a brown colour.” And Dr Baxendale has now written to me and explained that he first looked for the bronzing that one would rightfully expect in a document that was said to date from 1888-89; it was absent. He also writes that the first line above should have read “presence of oxidised iron” to avoid confusion. He further writes that “The omission of that one word caused some misunderstanding.”

Clearly the inclusion of the word "oxidised" into Baxendale's report so that the relevant sentence should have read "There is nothing to suggest the presence of oxidised iron" changes everything.

Any further questions arising out of Dr Baxendale's report and the way it has been drafted should be addressed to Dr Baxendale, not me. The key finding from Dr Baxendale's report has nothing to do with iron (and nothing to do with nigrosine). It is this, as reported by Harris (corroborating the Sunday Times article in 1993):

"His solvency test, a perfectly valid test in experienced hands, took him by surprise; "The pigments dissolved in distilled-water within seconds", he told me. This should not happen with a century-old gallotanic ink."

That sorts that one out.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4756  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:25 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Author: Melvin Harris Source: Casebook Archives, Tuesday, 5 December, 2000 11:41 am

"ON THE AGE OF THE DIARY INK:

In July 1992, Dr. David Baxendale examined the Diary handwriting line-by-line using a Zeiss binocular-microscope. At that time not the slightest trace of age-bronzing was found. Yet this phenomenon should have been present in an iron-based ink that was years old, certainly in one said to have been applied in 1888-9. Following that, in October 1992 Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh also saw no signs of age-bronzing.

The next examination of the Diary pages took place in August 1993, and was conducted by Warner Books' commissioned examiners. The members of this team were free to express their independent views. Neither Kenneth Rendell, Dr. Joe Nickell, Maureen Casey Owens, or Robert Kuranz saw any signs of age-bronzing. And my own limited examination of the Diary pages, in October 1993, led to the same conclusion.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4757  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:28 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

A quick reminder as to the purpose of Dr Baxendale's examination of the Diary and his subsequent report. It was not to conduct and provide a chemical analysis of the ink for The Word Team (who instructed him). It was this, as stated in the report itself:

"The purpose of my examination was to establish whether this book is an authentic document from 1889".


That's what he did. He concluded that it was not.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4758  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:32 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Why did I post the image of the 1995 Warren letter? Well I explained it at the time.

When posting it (in #4492 of Incontrovertible thread), I made clear that it was being posted to show the colour of Diamine Ink and the absence of "bluish undertones".

Here is what I said when I posted the image:

"To my eyes - and I confirm that I have not used any effects on this image - the ink would best be described as dark grey (and not dissimilar to the ink in the Diary). It certainly seems to bear no relation to the example written by Robert Smith in 2012 and reproduced in his 2017 book. I'm not sure how one explains this discrepancy bearing in mind it is supposed to be exactly the same ink."

That has clearly not been an amateurish exercise in futility. The only exercise in futility has involved the person who has tried to rubbish the image in every way possible, first rubbishing the quality (which is perfectly fine to see the colour) and then, in absolute desperation, attempting to suggest that Warren created a fake sample!! That is because she knows how damaging is the existence of this letter which not only looks the same colour as the colour of the Diary ink (something which is unlikely to have changed significantly from the day it was written) but also, according to Voller, exhibits similar characteristics of fading and bronzing.

Shirley Harrison could have done her own test in 1995 but failed to do so, even managing to lose the bottle of ink which somehow miraculously turned up in 2011. The Warren test sample is the only reliable one we have done in pre-1992 Diamine ink.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4759  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:37 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The Great Misremember strikes again part 349.

Did RJ recently suggest it was an it invention on the part of the Inside Story authors that Mike had ever asked for Alan Gray's help to prove his own forgery claims. Why don't we look at what RJ actually said?

This is it:

"One has to read between the lines, but from the context of these discussions, and the letter reprinted in Harrison's book (mentioned in a previous post) it certainly appears to me that Gray had some half-baked scheme to sell Mike's glorious confessions for profit (or at least was telling Mike this to motivate him) and Barrett was only *half-heartedly* playing along. [Warning: subjective opinion]. So, in this sense, one could understand why the Inside authors would suggest that Gray was helping Mike "prove that he had hoaxed the Diary." That is certainly ONE way of looking at this part of it, but to me, this is far too simplistic to be of any value."

So RJ did not say what the Great Misremember swears she could remember him saying.

This is why I refuse to accept anything the Great Misremember says from memory and always insist on a direct quote.

As far as I concerned, Mike enlisting an private detective to help prove he forged the diary is another way of saying that he hired a private detective to defend him from the accusation that he was lying about the Diary being a modern forgery. People and companies hire lawyers and other professionals all the time to help defend themselves against allegations.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4760  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:49 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Someone seems to be misremembering again.

Here is what I said in #26 in the Too Sensible and Competent thread:

"Incidentally, going forward I will be placing some deliberate but random typographical errors into my posts for anyone bonkers enough to want to highlight them in bold as a substitute for the professional therapy which they would so badly need to attempt such a weird pastime. It's obviously mad but harmless so please do have fun with it!"

Now, where in there do I say that the user known as Caz, or any other individual, has a mental illness? And where do I use the expression "gleefully rush". I never made any such claim and never used any such expression.

What I said very clearly is that anyone who wants to highlight my typos in bold must badly need professional therapy to do something so bonkers and weird and that it would be mad but harmless fun.

I do not take issues of mental health and mental illness lightly and would never tell people that I am "baiting someone who is mentally ill".

I do not know why the poster known as Caz is so obsessed with the concept of mental illness but it doesn't seem in any way an appropriate topic for this forum and could easily be considered to be morally repugnant.

And do I care if anyone thinks I'm "careless at best" or "thick at worst"? No I do not. Have I ever served up misinformation on this forum? No, I have not. At least not in connection with anything other than whether I have made a typo or not! The only person who would think so is someone with a complete sense of humour failure.
__________________
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 10:07 AM.


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