25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Sam Flynn]

I'm certainly no expert on the subject of forgery Sam but surely it's not just a case of slapping Victorian ink onto Victorian paper?

I don't believe we're dealing with sophisticated forgers, so I wouldn't have put it past them to have done just that.

Whatever our various opinions are on the scientific tests I would have thought that it would have been immediately apparent if the ink had been applied within a year or so of those tests without any attempt at ageing?

I wouldn't know, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't believe we're dealing with sophisticated forgers, so I wouldn't have put it past them to have done just that.

But if we knew, from someone with the relevant scientific knowledge, that some kind of ageing process must have occurred then surely we must allow at least a measure of sophistication?

[Sam Flynn]

But if we knew, from someone with the relevant scientific knowledge, that some kind of ageing process must have occurred then surely we must allow at least a measure of sophistication?

We don't know that any ageing process occurred and, from the evidence of the diary itself, it should be apparent that the forgers' sophistication extended no further than acquiring an appropriately-aged book. The idiom of the diary - in terms of language and, perhaps, handwriting - is not in the least convincing as a product of the Victorian period.

[Pcdunn]

Dir Dave, I think it was established that when Maybrick was writing something that wouldn't be read until the future, and which used phrases that wouldn't exist until the future, he used a handwriting that looked less Victorian. It's great how it all hangs together, that internal consistency is one of the reasons I believe it is definitely the confession of James Maybrick, Jack the Ripper, and had been kept by Anne Barrett or Tony D for decades until it was instead discovered beneath the floorboards of Battlecrease by an electrician, who recognised its value and stole it, before immediately giving it to a bloke down the pub, who thought so much of it he tried to buy a blank one just like it.

I do enjoy your humor very much, Mr. Flower.

[Pcdunn]

None of the hand writing matches each other, Diary, will, Dear Boss or saucy jack postcard.

There isn't any satisfactory explanation, (as usual) for anything except Maybrick being in two minds. Or should that be 4 or more minds for each piece of correspondence.

There is precedent in modern criminology for hand writing to change depending on an individuals state of mind though.

Robert Smith seems happy to leave it as a mystery unlikely to be solved. Also, calling into question forensic document examination as an inexact activity. Ultimately it is suggested that the issue is not an important one. (Not the exact wording but the meaning is clear).

Jury is out.

I think age, illness, and mental condition of the writer can affect the appearance of handwriting, and I also think that comparing the Diary only to the signature on Maybrick's will is insufficient for a sample.

I read that a letter by Maybrick also exists-- does anyone know if it has also been compared to the Diary?

[Henry Flower]

I do enjoy your humor very much, Mr. Flower.

Thank you Pat, that's very kind. I find it's the only way to stay sane on the Diary threads.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We don't know that any ageing process occurred and, from the evidence of the diary itself, it should be apparent that the forgers' sophistication extended no further than acquiring an appropriately-aged book. The idiom of the diary - in terms of language and, perhaps, handwriting - is not in the least convincing as a product of the Victorian period.

I can't see how, just from the evidence of the diary alone, we can possibly decuce that no ageing process occurred. I can understand someone being unconvinced by the content of the diary but the diary itself requires science. As I said before Sam I know nothing about inks, paper or the science of forgery but I think that it's something that we need to know.
If an expert informed us that if someone took a Victorian ink and applied it to a Victorian diary (without an ageing process) that it would immediately show up in scientific tests then we would have to assume that an ageing process took place. We cant separate the 'contents' from the diary itself. I think that these questions are relevant:

Would the diary have needed to go through some kind of ageing process for it not to have immediately shown up, in scientific tests, as having been written recently?

If the answer is no, then no problem, we move on. But if the answer is yes, then

What kind of skill/knowledge level would have been required and also what equipment and materials would have been needed? And,

Why, when Mike Barrett was 'overflowing' with information on how he obtained a Victorian diary, Victorian ink and how he researched and forged the diary, and yet he doesn't mention how he 'aged' the diary/inks so that they wouldn't show up in scientific tests?

This isn't an attempt to validate the diary. It's an attempt to get at the facts.

[David Orsam]

Would the diary have needed to go through some kind of ageing process for it not to have immediately shown up, in scientific tests, as having been written recently?

Leaving aside the newly developed and controversial ion migration test developed by Rod McNeil, and leaving aside analysis of the chemical properties of the ink, as I understand it the only scientific test that can be applied to test whether a document (written in ink) has been written recently or not is a solubility test. This is what the Sunday Times of 19 September 1993 said about that:

"One test commonly used to date documents such as this is a solubility test. A solvent is dropped on to the ink; the older the ink, the longer it takes to dissolve, since the passage of years causes ink and paper to integrate. For a document purportedly more than 100 years old, Baxendale would have expected the ink to take several minutes to begin to dissolve. In this case, says Baxendale, "it began to dissolve in a few seconds." Baxendale concluded it had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years."

So the underlying premise of your question, namely that the diary did not immediately show up as having been written recently, is questionable.

[Sam Flynn]

I can't see how, just from the evidence of the diary alone, we can possibly deduce that no ageing process occurred.

What I suggested was, on the evidence of the diary's content, it doesn't appear that we're dealing with particularly sophisticated hoaxers. On that basis, I wouldn't be surprised if they made no attempt to artificially age the diary.

I can understand someone being unconvinced by the content of the diary but the diary itself requires science.

It's not so much about my being unconvinced by the diary, Herlock, but what the content of the diary tells me about the hoaxers. I get the overwhelming impression that they were not the sharpest pencils in the box. (Or nibs in the inkwell, as the case may be.)

[Elamarna]

Why So Silent

It's now a week since the Liverpool event, and the silence from it has been truly deafening over the diary, both here and at JtR forums. Does anyone know why this is?
Even the Facebook sites are very quiet over the event.

Given we were all told to wait, this seems odd to me.

Any ideas?
Anyone?

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Leaving aside the newly developed and controversial ion migration test developed by Rod McNeil, and leaving aside analysis of the chemical properties of the ink, as I understand it the only scientific test that can be applied to test whether a document (written in ink) has been written recently or not is a solubility test. This is what the Sunday Times of 19 September 1993 said about that:

"One test commonly used to date documents such as this is a solubility test. A solvent is dropped on to the ink; the older the ink, the longer it takes to dissolve, since the passage of years causes ink and paper to integrate. For a document purportedly more than 100 years old, Baxendale would have expected the ink to take several minutes to begin to dissolve. In this case, says Baxendale, "it began to dissolve in a few seconds." Baxendale concluded it had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years."

So the underlying premise of your question, namely that the diary did not immediately show up as having been written recently, is questionable.

As I've said David I make no claim to expertise on this, or any other, subject. In his book Robert Smith says that: 'All other scientists who tested the ink found the opposite to be the case.' Also Dr. Eastaugh said:'To say that the ink is 'freely soluble' is subjective and effectively unsupported.' I'm certainly not qualified to decide whose opinion carries most weight.
The first point that I was trying to get across was that surely forging a Victorian document isn't as simple as applying the correct ink to the correct paper and so I would have thought that some ageing process would have had to have taken place (of course I could be wrong about this.) The second point/question was what does an ageing process entail, how difficult is it to achieve and what knowledge and equipment/materials are required. And third, why did Mike Barrett never mention how he did it despite being very free in his confession about how he achieved everything else?
Of course if Baxendale's initial 'result' is 'it' then we have an answer. But as Baxendale's results have been questioned then the questions appear to remain.

[peg&pie]

I read that a letter by Maybrick also exists-- does anyone know if it has also been compared to the Diary?

I believe there are several examples of Maybricks hand writing.
The signatures on the will and marriage certificate, along with the will itself if you believe he actually wrote it.

A small passage in a bible given to his previous lover Sarah Robertson.

Several letters/signatures uncovered by Paul Feldman's team. (Whatever you think of his theories he was a diligent researcher).

Sadly of course nothing matches to the diary.

Although I am of the opinion that there are superficial similarities to be found.

If any of these have since been found to be not genuine I stand to be corrected and apologise in advance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I suggested was, on the evidence of the diary's content, it doesn't appear that we're dealing with particularly sophisticated hoaxers. On that basis, I wouldn't be surprised if they made no attempt to artificially age the diary.It's not so much about my being unconvinced by the diary, Herlock, but what the content of the diary tells me about the hoaxers. I get the overwhelming impression that they were not the sharpest pencils in the box. (Or nibs in the inkwell, as the case may be.)

But we need to know if an ageing process would have had to have taken place or not. If it's the former then surely it's relevant especially if, as most appear to suggest, Barrett is proposed as the forger.

[peg&pie]

Regards ink solubility, it seems to be another area where pro and anti diarists have results that suit them both.

If it's not repeatable with consistent results, it's not science, and is worthless.

How can something that is described as an obvious forgery by many, still after 25 years provoke such passionate arguments from both sides?

At this point I don't care how old it is. I just want to know who wrote it, almost as much as I'd like to know the identity of JTR himself.

It's the fascination of the unknown I can't let go, somebody alive today knows the truth. Frankly, It's time to start applying electrodes or thumb screws.

[Sam Flynn]

But we need to know if an ageing process would have had to have taken place or not.

It depends on the reliability of the tests used to determine the date the ink was applied to the paper. I say "tests", but as far as I'm aware only the McNeil ion migration/Auger microscope test (singular) was desinged to specifically date when the ink was applied. If so, I've not seen much evidence forthcoming to attest to this test's reliability in practice; it was a very new technique at the time it was used on the diary, and it's possible that it's been refined since, or at least used so many times that one can have confidence in how consistent it is. Yet, despite my best efforts to find evidence of the test's efficacy (one way or another), I've found very few references to it indeed.