One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

The Ultimate Source Book
Letters From Hell
Jack The Ripper A-Z
Whitechapel 1888, by Fishman (ironically, you should ignore the section on the Ripper).

Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner also wrote an excellent history of the CID, which is tangentially connected to the Ripper case and an excellent read.

Hi Magpie,

Interesting to see that apart from Fishman, all the above were co-authored by arguably the greatest living authority on the diary story - Keith Skinner - who has been trying for years to prove himself wrong about the bloody thing not being a modern fake. The fact that he can work on book projects like these classics with such staunch modern hoax believers as Stewart Evans and Martin Fido should be a lesson to us all about personalities and individual ideas and beliefs not having to mean eternal conflict on the boards whenever this subject gets a renewed airing.

Has a diary ever been produced of any other serial killer? I mean, what's the likelihood a serial killer would write one?

Hi Voyeur,

I know of one murderer who kept a diary of his campaign to become a serial killer and his efforts in that regard. He was fifty when he started, but only managed to claim one victim, recording the details and also his plans for the next, before he got buckled by the appearance of his mobile phone number in his victim’s records. He rather prematurely claimed to be ‘a genius’, who had murder ‘down to a fine art’. His name is Mark Papazian if you want to look him up.

There’s really not much new under the sun, is there?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The one thing that I know of that would be incontrovertible would be the presence of preservatives in the ink. Last I heard, there was strong reason to believe that the ink had preservatives in it, but that the tests on the diary were cut off. This came as a bit of a surprise, as authentic ink is easy to make and actual antique ink can even be bought on e-bay. But apparently the forgers used an ink that was designed to emulate antique inks, but not to the point of not containing modern preservatives.

So I'm still waiting for the definitive answer on the preservatives, which the owners seem unwilling to provide.

Hi Christine,

I take it you meant modern preservatives. Alec Voller, the ink chemist who made the modern ink that some people used to believe was used (which contained the preservative called chloroacetamide, which has been used since the 1850s, although its first ever use in writing ink has not been established) told Shirley and co back in 1995 that “there would have to be a preservative” in a “proper ferro-gallic ink” and it would take “a week of doing things at the right time and in the right order” to make such an ink. He also said that he believed the diary ink to be “genuinely old” (and categorically not the ink he made himself), which would have left only phenol as the preservative. He said phenol is not too difficult to test for but the problem is quantity, because you’d be talking about “very, very minute amounts”.

I’m not sure when e-bay came into being, but the first efforts to analyse the diary ink began back in 1992 and are ongoing.

Anyhow, none of this addresses the ink, which is what I consider to be the only absolute debunking of the diary. I could probably write an undebunkable diary myself, using old paper and old ink, and not making any obvious mistakes.

Well good luck, but ‘probably’ doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. I’ve seen enough similar claims over the years to fill the blank pages of a second Victorian guard book. But even locating that appears to be beyond the capabilities of any of these self-professed undebunkable diarists.

The only info I found on the preservatives was on the dissertations, which I have read through. The impression I got was that the tests for Chloracetamide were inconclusive, and that the diary supporters cut off further tests. Plus Barrett said he adulterated the ink to make it looked aged.

One result (commissioned by Melvin Harris) merely indicated its presence, but it wasn’t repeated despite the ‘blank’ between the control and the sample not actually being blank. The University of Leeds (for Shirley) found none after taking anti-contamination measures and concluded it wasn’t an ingredient of the ink. Incidentally, their report was willingly provided by the diary owner (singular), but few people took up the offer. For what it’s worth, the modern preservative believers who read the report quickly ran out of steam and gave up trying to challenge its conclusion. If that’s not definitive I don’t know what would be.

No diary ‘supporter’ has ever ‘cut off’ further tests to my knowledge. Feldy sincerely believed he could prove the diary genuine without tests and Shirley commissioned as much analysis as her budget allowed. The diary was also subjected to non-invasive testing much more recently (with its owner promising beforehand to publish the results), and again nothing proved inconsistent with the right period. But one or two modern hoax believers have failed to get potential testing projects off the ground, through no fault of any ‘diary supporter’. One failed to reach proposal stage, while another was indeed ‘cut off’, but by a modern hoax believer, who thought the tests described would be too invasive and knew that the ink required for comparison purposes was not available anyway.

Oh and Mike Barrett has said a lot of things, often contradicting himself in the next breath. He once said it was simple to age the ink - he just added sugar. I'd add a hefty pinch of salt as well if I were you. The man wasn't all the ticket at the best of times, let alone when in 'confession' mode.

And you still haven't commented on the preservatives in the ink, which if proven by further tests that the diary keepers won't allow, would definitively prove it a hoax.

…the tests were cut off by the diary keepers, indicating that they themselves expected the diary to fail the tests.

Whoa there, Christine. How did you get from here:

‘So I'm still waiting for the definitive answer on the preservatives, which the owners seem unwilling to provide’

to here:

‘the diary keepers [sic] won’t allow’ further tests, indicating that they expect the diary ‘to fail the tests’ ?

The first comment might not have been an unreasonable mistake to make, considering the rusty old propaganda machine you seemed to be relying on for your information. But why allow yourself to be manipulated into making allegations that would be potentially damaging if they made any sense? As it is, they are immediately rendered false by the simple fact that professional analysis of one sort or another has been going on since the beginning, which would hardly have been ‘allowed’ by anyone fearing that the diary would fail them, let alone expecting it to fail every time it left their hands.

It would be nice if some credit could be given to those who didn't have a clue what each examination might reveal, when waving the diary off in yet another direction. Barrett might have been an innocent abroad, expecting his baby to pass every test with flying colours. But Doreen, Shirley and Robert Smith could hardly have known what to expect.

Love,

Caz
X

[Christine]

Hi caz, thanks for the comments.

I take it you meant modern preservatives. Alec Voller, the ink chemist who made the modern ink that some people used to believe was used (which contained the preservative called chloroacetamide, which has been used since the 1850s, although its first ever use in writing ink has not been established) told Shirley and co back in 1995 that “there would have to be a preservative” in a “proper ferro-gallic ink” and it would take “a week of doing things at the right time and in the right order” to make such an ink. He also said that he believed the diary ink to be “genuinely old” (and categorically not the ink he made himself), which would have left only phenol as the preservative. He said phenol is not too difficult to test for but the problem is quantity, because you’d be talking about “very, very minute amounts”.

I’m not sure when e-bay came into being, but the first efforts to analyse the diary ink began back in 1992 and are ongoing.

I'm not really sure what Voller means, because there are many recipes for ferro-gallic ink available, and you can make it in your kitchen. There is nothing in it that can be tested definitively for age.

The old inks on e-bay were available in antique shops before e-bay came into existence. They are usable antique ink powders, and they do not require a preservative. Liquid ink would have been unusable years before, certainly.

Well good luck, but ‘probably’ doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. I’ve seen enough similar claims over the years to fill the blank pages of a second Victorian guard book. But even locating that appears to be beyond the capabilities of any of these self-professed undebunkable diarists.

Well, it's kind of a moot point, because no one would bother taking my diary and running a bunch of expensive tests on it, and I'm too honest to try and pass it off as real. But I wonder what sort of test you think my diary would fail. I could easily get antique ink and antique paper, as mentioned above. I could do the historical research, and not put in any "Post House" anomalies. I could get an antique handwriting manual and copy a genuine handwriting style. I could use antique or reproduction pens.

One result (commissioned by Melvin Harris) merely indicated its presence, but it wasn’t repeated despite the ‘blank’ between the control and the sample not actually being blank. The University of Leeds (for Shirley) found none after taking anti-contamination measures and concluded it wasn’t an ingredient of the ink. Incidentally, their report was willingly provided by the diary owner (singular), but few people took up the offer. For what it’s worth, the modern preservative believers who read the report quickly ran out of steam and gave up trying to challenge its conclusion. If that’s not definitive I don’t know what would be.

So there are conflicting results, but a forger could easily have used an ink without preservatives. "Preservative believers" is not equivalent to "forgery believers." Maybe the ink had no preservatives.

No diary ‘supporter’ has ever ‘cut off’ further tests to my knowledge. Feldy sincerely believed he could prove the diary genuine without tests and Shirley commissioned as much analysis as her budget allowed. The diary was also subjected to non-invasive testing much more recently (with its owner promising beforehand to publish the results), and again nothing proved inconsistent with the right period. But one or two modern hoax believers have failed to get potential testing projects off the ground, through no fault of any ‘diary supporter’. One failed to reach proposal stage, while another was indeed ‘cut off’, but by a modern hoax believer, who thought the tests described would be too invasive and knew that the ink required for comparison purposes was not available anyway.

Well, Shirley's comments have always seemed rather odd to me. It's hard to interpret them, because she seems to really believe in the diary, and she may be right--there will never be a definitive test on the ink if it was made with old recipes.

Oh and Mike Barrett has said a lot of things, often contradicting himself in the next breath. He once said it was simple to age the ink - he just added sugar. I'd add a hefty pinch of salt as well if I were you. The man wasn't all the ticket at the best of times, let alone when in 'confession' mode.

Agreed, it is hard to know what to make of Barrett, but diary supporters act as if his troubles make the diary more plausible, not less.

Whoa there, Christine. How did you get from here:

‘So I'm still waiting for the definitive answer on the preservatives, which the owners seem unwilling to provide’

to here:

‘the diary keepers [sic] won’t allow’ further tests, indicating that they expect the diary ‘to fail the tests’ ?

The first comment might not have been an unreasonable mistake to make, considering the rusty old propaganda machine you seemed to be relying on for your information. But why allow yourself to be manipulated into making allegations that would be potentially damaging if they made any sense? As it is, they are immediately rendered false by the simple fact that professional analysis of one sort or another has been going on since the beginning, which would hardly have been ‘allowed’ by anyone fearing that the diary would fail them, let alone expecting it to fail every time it left their hands.

It would be nice if some credit could be given to those who didn't have a clue what each examination might reveal, when waving the diary off in yet another direction. Barrett might have been an innocent abroad, expecting his baby to pass every test with flying colours. But Doreen, Shirley and Robert Smith could hardly have known what to expect.

Love,

Caz
X

I would very much like to see any tests that are newer than those of the "rusty old propaganda machine." If you know where these tests are, I'd be very pleased to see them. Whether or not diary supporters secretly suspect that there were preservatives in the ink, there isn't much incentive for supporters to do more tests. In the meantime, the weight of evidence is very much against it. If I were in charge of the testing, I'd consult with some experts and see if I can or cannot get a definitive answer on preservatives vs. contamination, and decide whether these test were practical. Has this been done? Do you know what the answer was?

[Graham]

Without a doubt the world's top expert on the manufacture of ink to Victorian formulations resides in one of HM's colonies, and I'd expect that all will be revealed in great and incontrovertible detail in the book he purports to have recently published. Possess your souls in patience and soon the mystery will be solved to everyone's satisfaction.

Cheers,

A well-known Dutchman

[Soothsayer]

Without a doubt the world's top expert on the manufacture of ink to Victorian formulations resides in one of HM's colonies, and I'd expect that all will be revealed in great and incontrovertible detail in the book he purports to have recently published. Possess your souls in patience and soon the mystery will be solved to everyone's satisfaction.

Cheers,

A well-known Dutchman

Hmmm ... I feel we have heard this all before. Come back Steve Powell, all is forgiven!

I've decided to read Harrison's 'The American Connection' again, just for jolly, wouldn't you, etc.?

Trevor Marriott's '21st Century Investigation' was worthwhile solely for the suggestion that Chapman's and Eddowe's uteruses were removed before the postmorta for cash. Neatly solves the need for Jacko to have any surgical knowledge.

Can you believe that there are actually people who dare to post on this thread (and others) who have never actually read any of the books on the diary or even seen a facsimile of the text?

Shocking ...

PS If Newcastle are relegated on Sunday, you may not hear from me for a while. Hang in there, though - I'll be back.

[Graham]

Hiya Sooth!

Can you believe that there are actually people who dare to post on this thread (and others) who have never actually read any of the books on the diary or even seen a facsimile of the text?

Yes, I believe it only too well! Same goes for a whole load of posters apropos JtR in general.

Regarding Newcastle...er...don't know how to put this, but it's my own dear team Aston Villa in whose hands the future of the Toon would appear to lie. Aston Villa...who really should have been in the Top 3 this year had not poor old Laursen crocked himself. Football is all disappointment, Sooth. Just ask Joey Barton....

Cheers,

Graham

[Soothsayer]

Hiya Sooth!



Yes, I believe it only too well! Same goes for a whole load of posters apropos JtR in general.

Regarding Newcastle...er...don't know how to put this, but it's my own dear team Aston Villa in whose hands the future of the Toon would appear to lie. Aston Villa...who really should have been in the Top 3 this year had not poor old Laursen crocked himself. Football is all disappointment, Sooth. Just ask Joey Barton....

Cheers,

Graham

As a truly desperate man, I shall take the unlikeliness of your being a Villan (you could have been anywhere in the world!) as a clear sign that Fate is looking kindly on us and that the Geordie faithful will once again (in August) be looking forward to a trip to Villa Park ...

[Graham]

Sooth,

I am Aston born and bred. I know every brick in Trinity Road. Desperate sorry...

Graham

[Soothsayer]

Saying the diary could have written the diary doesn't indicate a belief that it was written by a 13 year-old. For my part, I believe that it was written by somebody much older, albeit with the mindset of someone much younger - and the writing ability to match.

Quite honestly, I could have done a damn sight better job of the "diary" when I was aged 11. Therefore, the notion that a 13 year-old could have written it is not a "ridiculous suggestion" by any means.

Sam,

Apologies for being so late in my reply to your post, but time passing has not dulled the urge for nor the relevance of a response.

The fact is, you really shouldn't be commenting on the Maybrick journal when all you've done is read a transcript of it on the internet!

Read Harrison I, Harrison II, Harrison III, and Feldman, and then come back and pass comment!

[Sam Flynn]

The fact is, you really shouldn't be commenting on the Maybrick journal when all you've done is read a transcript of it on the internet!

That's good enough for me, Sooth. Unless you're suggesting that the inauthentic Maybrick handwriting somehow improves matters.

Read Harrison I, Harrison II, Harrison III, and Feldman, and then come back and pass comment!

I doubt that reading a commentary by those with a vested interest would improve matters either. Thanks, but no thanks

[Soothsayer]

Oh woe! Woe!

Oh costly Championship of death!

[Archaic]

Musings On the Tragic Allure of the Doomed Hero

Hi, Soothsayer! I just wanted to say, ''You crack me up!'' I sincerely respect your valiant efforts to single-handedly defend your chosen position. Personally, I don't believe in the Maybrick Diary for two seconds, but I do appreciate your good-humored enthusiasm in this endless debate.

Maybe at heart you are the Old-Fashioned Romantic Type who simply can't resist a 'Lost Cause', and the Irish in me sympathizes with you!

I see you, Captain Soothsayer, as the imperiled Lone Swordsman, back up against the wall, heroically battling the Pirates who have swarmed your (rather leaky & tilting) ship, your sword glinting furiously in the dying light...
WHAT will happen next? Will your sword break? (horrors!) Will your dastardly foes throw a giant net over you & capture you alive?? Will they make you walk the plank??? Will you be saved by the Cavalry -oh, wait - the Marines????

I don't know. But it's so exciting to watch a real live 1920's-30's style cliff-hanger that I will just have to tune in next time... Battle on, O Soothslayer! (Can someone please pass the popcorn?) -Best regards, Archaic

[Soothsayer]

I see you, Captain Soothsayer, as the imperiled Lone Swordsman, back up against the wall, heroically battling the Pirates who have swarmed your (rather leaky & tilting) ship, your sword glinting furiously in the dying light...
WHAT will happen next? Will your sword break? (horrors!) Will your dastardly foes throw a giant net over you & capture you alive?? Will they make you walk the plank??? Will you be saved by the Cavalry -oh, wait - the Marines????
Best regards, Archaic

I understand the sentiments, Archaic, and it is true that to many on this site I am the Last Bastion of Truth, the upholder of eternal values, the spiritual leader of a thousand souls searching for light in the terrible darkness of our soulless age. A man who not only sees the future but is the future!

I love your analogies - but in truth I see myself more of a brave and roving Doctor Who, travelling through space and time in a particularly small box, fearlessly fighting at all sides of the universe our old enemies ... yes, the evil Omlorians who plan to take over the planet Earth with their cold sneers and irony bypasses.

Daddle-a-da Daddle-a-da Daddle-a-da Daddle-a-da
Daddle-a-da Daddle-a-da Daddle-a-da Daddle-a-da etc.

[The Good Michael]

But Doctor Who isn't real... a parallel with the diary! By the way, I never GOT Doctor Who. I absolutely hated that show. It was on par with the Smurfs for me. Maybe it was an acquired taste.

Mike

[Soothsayer]

But Doctor Who isn't real... a parallel with the diary!
Mike

The diary isn't real?

But I've seen pictures of it, man!