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

[rjpalmer]

No I don't think he means that. "age offset" is a mathematical or statistical term commonly used by geologists etc. when dating artifacts and it relates, I believe, to the ability to accurately date an artifact.

Thanks. What you say makes a great deal of sense, and I was convinced, but then I poked around a bit further and found this comment by Joe Nickell in his chapter on the Maybrick forgery in Real Fake(2009). I'm sorry I didn't see it earlier.

"I had emphasized the need for the ultraviolet examination because old ink--especially old iron-gall ink--frequently leaves a faint image of itself on a page it is in contact with for a long period. Sometimes this is not apparent to the unaided eye but may be revealed--often dramatically--by ultraviolet illumination (or by argon laser light). Since such offsetting is rather unpredictable, its absence means little, but its presence could be a sign of apparent age in a document"

So it appears that Rendall was talking about this type of ink "offsetting," and he found not evidence for it.

In the same chapter Nickell makes some interesting comments about the yellow squares on the flyleaf, and--something I didn't remember--a scrap of material torn off the inside cover, which, according to Nickell, is consistent with a stationer's sticker or bookplate, suggesting, perhaps, that it gave some clue to the album's age or origin that the forger didn't wish to advertise.

Thanks for the info on the size of the rectangles. I may have more on this in a day or two.

[Sam Flynn]

There's one question that I'd like to ask about the Ion Migration test. I have absolutely no problem with the assertion that it's a very unreliable test. I'm no scientist. What I would like to know is whether this test is so completely worthless that it wouldn't be able to detect a document that was written within a year or so of the testing?

A good question, HS, but we don't know. When McNeil invented the test - in 1984 or thereabouts - he used a few documents (circa 10 in all; I can't recall the precise figure off the top of my head) spanning several centuries. Personally, I wouldn't invest much confidence in a technique that had been developed against such a small sample size.

Be that as it may, what we can say is that, when tasked with dating a recently-forged Mormon document that had (so it transpired) been artificially aged, the sensitivity of the McNeil test was shown to have been compromised. I'm not suggesting that the "Maybrick" diary had been artificially aged, but I would observe that the McNeil ion-migration test had by no means been proven to be definitive at the time it was applied to the diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's one question that I'd like to ask about the Ion Migration test. I have absolutely no problem with the assertion that it's a very unreliable test. I'm no scientist. What I would like to know is whether this test is so completely worthless that it wouldn't be able to detect a document that was written within a year or so of the testing?

[David Orsam]

Also, what does Rendell mean by "age offset"? Any ideas, Mr. Orsam? Do you think that he means that in old books and manuscripts, in certain circumstances, the ink transfers itself to the opposing page, presumably only visible under ultraviolet light?

No I don't think he means that. "age offset" is a mathematical or statistical term commonly used by geologists etc. when dating artifacts and it relates, I believe, to the ability to accurately date an artifact. In simple terms, as I understand it, a large age offset would mean that the artifact would appear to be difficult to date accurately due to various factors which could produce dates a long way from the correct date whereas no age offset would mean that there would appear to be no factors which will affect the correct dating. It's possible that Rendell is saying that all the measurements taken of the ink throughout the diary produced a consistent result but I wouldn't really like to say because there doesn't seem to be enough information provided to explain it.

[David Orsam]

I would like confirmation of the exact size of these "rectangles," but I can't find it.

According to the Sunday Times of 19 September 1993:

"Baxendale concluded that the pages which had been removed had had material, possibly photographs, glued to them. The rectangular stains measured approximately 3½in by 2½in, a popular size for photographs from roll film between the first and second world wars. The Victorians had larger glass plate printing."

According to Robert Smith in a Casebook post on 11 March 2004, Baxendale's exact words were:

"I have noted, that the rectangular stains measure approximately 3 ½ x 2 ½ inches, which was once a popular size for photographs and corresponds with the size of the film used in roll film cameras".

Smith's response to the idea that this disproves that the diary is Victorian can be found here (in his post timed at 1:27pm on 11 March 2004):

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/11696.html

[rjpalmer]

On pg 8 his report, "The Kenneth W. Rendell Gallery, Inc.---Report on the Diary of Jack the Ripper," Rendell makes an interesting claim. He writes about an examination of the Diary using ultraviolet light. "The ultraviolet examination showed that rectangular pieces, probably postcards, were mounted on the first, now missing page (an outline of their images appear on the first existing page). It also showed no age offset of the ink of the diary."


Dr. Baxendale offers some additonal information about these 'rectangles' which he independently discovered during his earlier examination of the Diary. Linder, Morris, & Skinner, pg. 13: "Dr. Baxendale discovered stuck in the binding "a fragment of what he believed to be the 'torn edge of a small photograph.' " Baxendale also found glue on the diary. He would later observed that the scrapbook "may have contained photographs of a size that was popular between the two wars."(p. 62) [ie., roughly 1919-1938].

I would like confirmation of the exact size of these "rectangles," but I can't find it. Also, what does Rendell mean by "age offset"? Any ideas, Mr. Orsam? Do you think that he means that in old books and manuscripts, in certain circumstances, the ink transfers itself to the opposing page, presumably only visible under ultraviolet light?

[Pcdunn]

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.

Thank you for the information, peg, it's very helpful.

All right, a question for those supporting the hoax: were writing samples from either or both Barretts taken for comparison to the Diary? What were the results, if so? Was Mike's confession taken as enough proof that this comparison was not performed?

[David Orsam]

Sam, it actually says that the tester would have to cut a significant portion of the ink stroke.

The footnote reference is to a 1963 article. McNeil's technique wasn't developed until the 1980s.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hadn't read that one, Herlock, but I'm naturally interested for any relevant info. Do you have a link to the article?

Sam, it actually says that the tester would have to cut a significant portion of the ink stroke. You've probably already read this but I hope the link works anyway.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20test&f=false

[Sam Flynn]

Full article: https://medium.com/boston-university...x-da49e1287d5e

So, ironically, by bringing up McNeil's discredited Ion Migration experiment, you are honing in on the ONE THING that both sides agree on. This "test" was misguided and worthless and tells us nothing...

Something tells me that not everyone accepts that the test was misguided - indeed, I've recently been subjected to some flak merely for questioning the test's reliability. That sober and very well-written article to which you linked will probably be dismissed by some zealous diary advocates, simply because it was written by a computer sciences major rather than a forensic scientist or similar.

[rjpalmer]

"The Harrison party has often cited Roderick McNeil’s ion-migration tests where, using Scanning Auger Microscopy, he claimed that he could measure the migration of tiny particles in the ink and, from those measurements, calculate the time the ink has been on paper. However, ion-migration tests had been around for over sixty years prior to the release of that report, yet no other expert ever claimed that the test could be modified to provide accurate dating..."

Later, McNeil "acknowledged that the heavy, unsized paper of album used to create the diary would have defeated his attempts to match up with the reference samples. This is important because unsized paper is extra absorbent and a simple ink-solubility test determined that the ink was barely dry on the pages.
Ironically, Robert Smith himself has written that McNeil and Rendell would be unable to scientifically explain his dating technique or even prove that such a technique is possible. He cited respected auger microscopist Robert Wild’s tests that couldn’t obtain a result because when the machine bombarded the paper with electrons, it created a static charge which distorted the signals. Smith further stated that both Dr. Wild and Dr. Eastaugh were skeptical that McNeil would be able to explain to the scientific community how he used the microscope to date manuscripts with any degree of useful accuracy."

Full article: https://medium.com/boston-university...x-da49e1287d5e

So, ironically, by bringing up McNeil's discredited Ion Migration experiment, you are honing in on the ONE THING that both sides agree on. This "test" was misguided and worthless and tells us nothing and it would be beneficial to the mental health of humanity if it was never mentioned again until the last syllable of recorded time...

[Sam Flynn]

I've just read a bit about the test and, from what I've read (not much really) it appears that many people object to subjecting their questioned items to this test because for it to be accurate a large portion of the document needs to be used and therefore destroyed.

I hadn't read that one, Herlock, but I'm naturally interested for any relevant info. Do you have a link to the article?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I've just read a bit about the test and, from what I've read (not much really) it appears that many people object to subjecting their questioned items to this test because for it to be accurate a large portion of the document needs to be used and therefore destroyed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that David. As you say, it's a pity that Smith doesn't name the 'other' scientists.

[David Orsam]

In his book Robert Smith says that: 'All other scientists who tested the ink found the opposite to be the case.'

Yes but he doesn't then go on to tell us what other scientists he is talking about or which of them carried out a solubility test on the ink.

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.

Dr Eastaugh is not a forensic document examiner. Dr Baxendale is a very experienced forensic document examiner.

The result of a solubility test is clearly subjective because it relies on the experience of the examiner to know how quickly an old ink should dissolve. The Sunday Times quoted Dr Baxendale as saying that the ink began to dissolve in a few seconds.

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.)

I know, and my response was that it is simple because the only established scientific test is a solubility test (which the diary failed, according to Dr Baxendale).

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.

Well there's not much point discussing techniques which would fool a solubility test (if there are any) given Dr Baxendale's apparent findings. The kind of techniques you are thinking of may be designed to make the ink look old (i.e. to fool visual tests) but that's another issue.

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?

If there was nothing he did this would explain why he didn't say anything.

Of course if Baxendale's initial 'result' is 'it' then we have an answer.

Exactly.

But as Baxendale's results have been questioned then the questions appear to remain.

Anyone can question anything but has anyone ever disproved that the ink dissolved in a few seconds when tested by Baxendale?