One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Simon Wood]

Hi Graham,

Thank you.

Just so I can get a grip on all this, do you happen to know if the "Hitler Diaries" were subjected to the same tests?

Regards,

Simon

[Iconoclast]

Ike,

2] - 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

I thought the Aston Villa line was good, though?

Ike

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Thank you.

Just so I can get a grip on all this, do you happen to know if the "Hitler Diaries" were subjected to the same tests?

Regards,

Simon

Simon, I honestly don't know. The subject, I have to confess, didn't interest me at all. However, I thought that the Hitler things were kicked into touch because the paper was modern?

Graham

[Graham]

I thought the Aston Villa line was good, though?

Ike

Oi, pal, I'm a Villa supporter, me, and me and the lads are on our way....

Graham (Holte End Name: Really, Really Nasty Sod).

[GUT]

Hi Graham,

Thank you.

Just so I can get a grip on all this, do you happen to know if the "Hitler Diaries" were subjected to the same tests?

Regards,

Simon

Have never seen any reference to Ion Migration on Hitler, the problems were, as far as I know two fold, one the paper, under ultra violet light floresced in a manner that old paper wouldn't have, and the book was bound with a material containing polyester (not invented till mid 1950s).

[Simon Wood]

Hi GUT,

Thank you.

All in all, a bit of a giveaway.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

Thank you.

All in all, a bit of a giveaway.

Regards,

Simon

The Polyester was giveaway.

If Maybrick is a modern forgery, they learnt from Hitler and at least bought an old book to write it in.

[spyglass]

Have never seen any reference to Ion Migration on Hitler, the problems were, as far as I know two fold, one the paper, under ultra violet light floresced in a manner that old paper wouldn't have, and the book was bound with a material containing polyester (not invented till mid 1950s).

Actually Polyester was invented in 1941 by us the Brits.
And as the Nazis were always ahead of the game, you never know they may have been ahead if the game.
After all they were building flying saucers apparently.
So Hitler back in the frame.

[Iconoclast]

Please tell me you are not one of 'them?' And you never picked up on my 'Wor Jackie' ref...

I did indeed pick up on your clever reference to our finest son and was trying to think how I could steal all the credit for it when you came out and made the link directly. I can't believe it has never occurred to me to use that one. I grew up in 1960s Newcastle to stories of 'Wor Jackie' Milburn, and all the misery since has simply raised his memory to sainthood. Personally, I was first a fan in the 1970s so my favourite player will always be Supermac, but Wor Jackie's ghost lingers in the ground every game in a way that no-one else's ever will.

But what of Wor Jackie Maybrick? Will his ghost linger forever in the history of Ripperology, or will we find that he was a one-season-wonder?

Answers on a postcard to the Liverpool Echo, dated October 10, 1888, please ...

Howay the Lads

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Oi, pal, I'm a Villa supporter, me, and me and the lads are on our way....

Graham (Holte End Name: Really, Really Nasty Sod).

I feel terrible to have mentioned it! What were the chances, eh?

Mind, having survived many an unpleasant experience in the old Leazes End at St James' (manys the time I've wanted to burn that place to the ground, a la Wor Jackie Maybrick) in the mid-1970s, I'm afraid your 'Really, Really Nasty Sod' instills no great concern, I'm afraid. There's a Sod on the Tyne too many for me to fear those of a claret and blue disposition, I fear.

'On your way' where, though, Holtender? Back to the Promised Land or off to the Siberian hinterland of League One???

Toon Toon Maybrick Army!

Ike

[drstrange169]

According to Melvin Harris, the "Ion-migration" test is unreliable, as it cannot detect if a document has been artificially aged. It's specific purpose is to determine whether to different documents were written in the same period.

[GUT]

Most document examiners consider all aging tests for ink on paper to be unreliable.

[Iconoclast]

Most document examiners consider all aging tests for ink on paper to be unreliable.

As a reliable, objective review of the Maybrick case, it is hard to beat Linder et alia, and I have returned to it just to remind myself of the 'facts' in the Maybrick and Wor Jackie case, though there are surprisingly few of those ever truly agreed upon.

The journal itself was dated to 1921 give or take 30 years (under certain conditions, which have not - to my knowledge - ever been given) and there is no suggestion (in Linder) that it would be feasible to artificially age the document. The scratchings in the watch have been dated to be at least tens of years old (bear in mind, this was the early 1990s) which, I'm guessing, is where Caz Morris (of Linder et al. fame) derives her oft-quoted stat of no a forgery being laid down no later than 1970.

The artefacts in the case (the journal and the watch) contradict the only realistic case that can be made for a forgery - that is, a modern (post-1987) one. The details in the diary which were only published post-1987 (e.g., 'tin match box, empty', and Kelly's absent heart in her body) tell us that either the hoax was created post-1987, or that they were created by someone who knew these facts before they were published (that would primarily be the killer himself, and the authorities who investigated the crimes or their 'descendents').

So the facts in the diary were published in or after 1987, but the journal and the watch scratchings are dated many tens of years beforehand (in fairness, one year beforehand would still have been a problem for our forger). How is that possible?

So we have to turn to the notion that the journal and the watch marks were created around the time of the crimes by someone who knew the facts including the unpublished ones. This is possible. It could have been a serving police officer or one of the autopsy team. But they would have to also have a strong insight into the Maybrick household, so that would suggest someone like Michael Maybrick (his London police masonic links identified so dilligently by Bruce Robinson would certainly be plausible routes into the unpublished information about the crimes).

Whoever 'hoaxed' the journal, of course, also knew about the letters 'F' and 'M' on Kelly's wall, which rather rules out a member of Maybrick's household or family as that would be a coincidence too far. So I would suggest that that leaves us with the following scenario:

The journal and the watch marks were created by someone in the know, and probably well before the 1970s (watch) or 1950s (journal, 1921 plus 30 years).

But, there's at least two problems even with that theory. If the hoaxer was someone in possession of the official 'facts' in the case, why did they get the placing of Kelly's breasts wrong?

And - here's my favourite of the two - if the journal and watch marks are not modern, why did the hoaxer choose to name the 'Poste House' which (as everyone knows) is a central claim against the journal having been written by James Maybrick? How had they heard of such a name if it didn't then exist in some way?

There remains one simple (simpler?) theory which comfortably explains the emergence of the journal and the watch. James Maybrick owned both, and was Jack the Ripper.

Ike

[GUT]

Well they knew about the F and M, without mentioning them, and as many people can't see them, well"......

So realisticall the best we can date them is the 1900s.

So what?

[Iconoclast]

From Harrison II (hardback, p29):

Like Dr Turgoose, Dr Wild photographed slivers of brass embedded within the scratch marks. They were blackened with age. The penultimate paragraph of his detailed report (which also stresses the need for much more lengthy work to pinpoint the precise age of the scratches) reads: Provided the watch has remained in a normal environment, it would seem likely that the engravings were at least od several tens of years age. This would agree with the findings of Dr Turgoose (1993) and in my opinion it is unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings.

The reference to brass particles is to the fact that miniscule shards of the implement used to make the marks are clearly visible under high-powered microscopes. Two independent tests completed on the watch (a watch which cost Albert Johnson £225). The first cost £400 and the second £561. Both tests were paid for by Albert Johnson and their results were not subjected to any kind of embarge before Albert knew their outcome. An honest man, honestly trying to establish the truth of what he had in his possession?

I offer you this now - in advance of the inevitable asinine posts which tend to follow and which follow the general line that aging engravings in a watch would be a ten-minute job for anyone with an oven. Try it, if you don't believe it. You'll just end up with a very hot watch ...

Ike