One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Well everyone on this site but a handful of crackpots believe it's a forgery.

The chattering classes love nothing more than a cheap pop at the journal, and they love it all the more when a bunch of them are on together, trying to kick the hell out of it like bullies in the playground.

Those who have actually read the books and read the journal transcription (and facsimile) tend to be less belligerent. Knowledge does that in the schoolyard.

Eventually, the bullies go off to their menial, unskilled roles in life, and the scholars rise to the top. C'est la vie. So shall it be. It's like being able to predict the future.

[John Wheat]

The chattering classes love nothing more than a cheap pop at the journal, and they love it all the more when a bunch of them are on together, trying to kick the hell out of it like bullies in the playground.

Those who have actually read the books and read the journal transcription (and facsimile) tend to be less belligerent. Knowledge does that in the schoolyard.

Eventually, the bullies go off to their menial, unskilled roles in life, and the scholars rise to the top. C'est la vie. So shall it be. It's like being able to predict the future.

Grow Up.

[Simon Wood]

Hi John Wheat,



Regards,

Simon

[Graham]

Hello, and all that....

1] Am I correct in saying that the Diary is still owned (or at least in the care of) Robert Smith of Smith-Gryphon Ltd?

2] Am I also correct in thinking that Mr Smith has in recent years absolutely refused to release the Diary for further forensic and analytical testing even though such techniques have moved on since its previous analyses?

3] 'Scuse me for name-dropping here, but prior to my retirement Diamine Inks Ltd in Liverpool were customers of my employer, and I did (very briefly) meet someone there, who in fairness wasn't really too keen to discuss the Diary with me, a mere rep, but did confirm that in the company's opinion the ink was (a) not Diamine and (b) had been put onto the paper a long time ago. This opinion was confirmed some time later by someone else I spoke to who knew the Diamine company and its products and was interested in the so-called Maybrick Diary. These two (extremely brief) discussions served to confirm what I'd already learned from reading The Ripper Diary - The Inside Story by Linder et al.

4] The famous 'ion migration test' (stop me if I'm getting too technical...) by Rod McNeil appeared to show that the ink had been put onto the paper in 1921 plus or minus 12 years, i.e., between 1909 and 1933. If this analysis can be relied upon, then there is no chance that the Diary is genuine and it must therefore be a hoax. Now, like the famous DNA results in the James Hanratty Case, believers in Maybrick's guilt will be telling me that there must be some mistake, some kind of contamination, the technician who did the test was pissed, or the test never actually happened at all. This was the test that appeared to be the most scientifically-based and the one that seemed to be more or less generally accepted. (Apart, that is, by the Awkward Squad who still think that Maybrick was the Ripper).

5] From what I've read over the years about the Diary and James Maybrick (quite a lot) it always struck me that the Watch was and probably still is the tougher nut to crack compared with the Diary. For a start, it had not been (as far as I'm aware) exposed to, or been in the possession of, Liverpool scallywags, and it was also shown by analysis, to my satisfaction at least, that the etchings or scratches were old and could not possibly be modern. Which of course doesn't rule it out as a hoax, but, like the Diary, IMHO not a modern one.

Of course, all what I've written above has been writ before and will doubtless be wrut again, but it just gets mysteriouser and mysteriouser, doesn't it?

Graham

[Simon Wood]

Hi Graham,

What happened to the watch?

Regards,

Simon

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

What happened to the watch?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

last I heard it was still in the possession of its 'discoverer', Albert Johnson, now deceased. That English 'horologist' who lived in Spain, name of Stanley Dangar, offered Albert a small fortune for the watch but Albert didn't sell. However, I believe that shortly before he died Albert did offer the watch for sale, but apparently there were no takers. I assume it remains with his family.

Graham

[Simon Wood]

Hi Graham,

Thank you very much.

No buyers for Jack the Ripper's watch, eh?

Extraordinary.

Regards,

Simon

[Iconoclast]

Hi Graham,

Thank you very much.

No buyers for Jack the Ripper's watch, eh?

Extraordinary.

Regards,

Simon

Sadly, that's what enough mud does. It sticks. Rightly or wrongly.

No need to get all self-righteous about it.

Incidentally, according to you it would just be a watch either way, wouldn't it?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

4] The famous 'ion migration test' (stop me if I'm getting too technical...) by Rod McNeil appeared to show that the ink had been put onto the paper in 1921 plus or minus 12 years, i.e., between 1909 and 1933. If this analysis can be relied upon, then there is no chance that the Diary is genuine and it must therefore be a hoax.
Graham

You know what's coming (you more or less predicted it). The ion migration test is not the science it proposed to be. The prediction of 1921 plus or minus 12 years is unreliable.

I know I'm sounding like a chronic Maybrick apologist (and, of course, I am), but this test is not the knees on the bee, mate.

Ike

[Graham]

Ike wrote:

You know what's coming (you more or less predicted it). The ion migration test is not the science it proposed to be. The prediction of 1921 plus or minus 12 years is unreliable.

1] you don't know what ion migration is, do you?

2] and on whose authority is it unreliable in this case?

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Thank you very much.

No buyers for Jack the Ripper's watch, eh?

Extraordinary.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I know. It's almost incredible, isn't it?

Cheers,

Graham

[Simon Wood]

Hi Graham,

I have to admit that I wouldn't know an ion migration test if it leapt up and bit me.

So I Googled it.

No good. My eyes glazed over and I fell into a deep slumber.

Can you help?

Regards,

Simon

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

I have to admit that I wouldn't know an ion migration test if it leapt up and bit me.

So I Googled it.

No good. My eyes glazed over and I fell into a deep slumber.

Can you help?

Regards,

Simon

Well, very basically it's a measure of how ions, or molecular constituents of, in this case, a solution of solid materials in a liquid, take to travel, or 'migrate', along a permeable material, such as the fibre component of paper. I can only assume that Rod McNeil had carried out some previous tests on various materials so as to establish 'controls'; that is, perhaps he took a hand-written manuscript of known age and carried out his test on that for purposes of comparison with future tests. I am afraid I don't know the precise technique he used, but (just a guess here) would suspect that an electron microscope came into the action. There are obviously many, many variables: eg, the composition of the ink; the materials and manufacturing process of the paper; how the test material had been stored; and doubtless many more. McNeil himself said that had the Diary been stored under certain conditions, then his estimate of 1921 +/- 12 years could be +/- 30 years. His test could not accurately determine the precise year the ink went onto the paper, but it could tell if it had gone on recently, or a number of years ago.

The interesting thing here is that as far as I'm aware Mr Kenneth Rendell, who had authorised and arranged the ion migration test, had done so in the hope that it would show the Diary to be a modern hoax, eg, written by Michael Barrett or the apocryphal 'nest of forgers'. He was disappointed.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Well, very basically it's a ...

Graham

And this time in English. Quick calculation: 1921 - 30 equals ...

Fascinating stuff. The IMT is like the Aston Villa of migration tests, I suspect - full of promise and no delivery.

Ike

[Graham]

Ike,

1]

Quick calculation: 1921 - 30 equals ...

well, 1891, actually. By which time Maybrick had been quietly decomposing for a couple of years. Unless, of course, this is what is meant by 'ghost written'....?

2]

Fascinating stuff. The IMT is like the Aston Villa of migration tests, I suspect - full of promise and no delivery.

- not at all, it's an established analytical technique. Let's be honest here, had Rod McNeil said, "Well, I'll be rogered with a fish-fork - my tests show that this thing was written in late 1888 - early 1889", then the IMA would be the best thing since....er....litmus paper was invented, right?

Graham