One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Same for the tests on the diary ink you get a range from 1892 (by which time Jim is dead) a latest of 1942... Then watch which dates to several decades before the testing.... Mmmmm winder when it was all put together????

I'll take it as read that you meant 1891 and 1951, though your inaccuracy is symptomatic of your understanding.

I doubt anyone would take "plus or minus 30 years" to categorically exclude the possibility of a little inside or outside of that range. No science of aging is ever going to be that precise. I doubt the '30 years' were categorically meant to mean 'in no way earlier than 1891, and certainly nothing as ridiculously earlier as 2 to 3 years'.

Your inference here (from your quotation) is that the journal and watch marks were created around about 1951 (but no later according to your pedantic 'science'!), so you need to explain to the hundreds or thousands of people who follow this thread how this was possible when the journal contains at least two details which were locked away for one hundred years and not published until 1987.

No need to go off piste in your answer, GUT. Just get straight to the point. How did Johnny Hoaxer pull off this feat in 1951?

Focus, man. Read the books. Think through your arguments. Make some cogent ones occasionally.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I'll take it as read that you meant 1891 and 1951, though your inaccuracy is symptomatic of your understanding.

I doubt anyone would take "plus or minus 30 years" to categorically exclude the possibility of a little inside or outside of that range. No science of aging is ever going to be that precise. I doubt the '30 years' were categorically meant to mean 'in no way earlier than 1891, and certainly nothing as ridiculously earlier as 2 to 3 years'.

Your inference here (from your quotation) is that the journal and watch marks were created around about 1951 (but no later according to your pedantic 'science'!), so you need to explain to the hundreds or thousands of people who follow this thread how this was possible when the journal contains at least two details which were locked away for one hundred years and not published until 1987.

No need to go off piste in your answer, GUT. Just get straight to the point. How did Johnny Hoaxer pull off this feat in 1951?

Focus, man. Read the books. Think through your arguments. Make some cogent ones occasionally.

Ike

Still waiting, incidentally ...

[Observer]

Still waiting, incidentally ...

I'm stll waiting, (after the idiotic accusation that I had not read a word of the material published in favour of the Diary) of the acknowledgement that I have indeed read the original "Diary of Jack The Ripper", and Paul Feldman's, "Jack The Ripper The Final Chapter".

[Iconoclast]

I'm stll waiting, (after the idiotic accusation that I had not read a word of the material published in favour of the Diary) of the acknowledgement that I have indeed read the original "Diary of Jack The Ripper", and Paul Feldman's, "Jack The Ripper The Final Chapter".

Apologies - I hadn't realised that I was supposed to be psychic. The only evidence I have seen is a picture of a load of Jack the Ripper books in a bookcase.

But they were posted by a 'drstrange'. How was I supposed to know that that was you, Observer?

Maybe you - with all your books on a shelf - can tell GUT how a hoaxer in 1951 (or there or there abouts as far as I'm concerned) could include details in a hoaxed journal which were not published until 1987?

I shan't hold my breath any longer for your answer than I have for his, mind ...

Ike

[Iconoclast]

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.

dusty miller, dr stange, Observer.

I'm confused ...

[Observer]

dusty miller, dr stange, Observer.

I'm confused ...

You often are, frequently. I'm not surprised though, you being a Newcastle United fan. Your fellow supporters are constantly confused as to what constitutes a big club, they mistakenly holding onto the belief that Newcastle United are a big club. Poor souls, their delusion knows no bounds.

I am not Dr Strange. If you took a leaf out of own book, (you're forever advising posters to read the facts) you'd see that I provided, immediately after your outrageous accusation, an exert from Pauls Feldman's book proving that I indeed own, and have read Paul Feldman's book.

I am also waiting for your reply to Dr Strange's post, in which he contested your "belief" that you had read every word of the material printed in favour of the Diary being genuine.

[Iconoclast]

You often are, frequently.

He he he. I'm never confused. Very clear headed, in fact.

Your fellow supporters are constantly confused as to what constitutes a big club, they mistakenly holding onto the belief that Newcastle United are a big club. Poor souls, their delusion knows no bounds.

There are 250,000 people who live in Newcastle, and around 50,000 who attend every home game. Which of these say the club is a 'big club'? I couldn't name one. But what does 'big club' mean? A team that constantly wins things? Probably not, as then you'd have to include teams that win their league every season because there is no competition (Celtic spring to mind). In truth, it's just one of those things that gets said by people. It's an urban myth. Your post was ideal, in that regard, in that it reflects beautifully the constant clinging to urban myths about the journal to denounce it without any great attempt to research it or understand it. Which brings me on to ...

I am not Dr Strange. If you took a leaf out of own book, (you're forever advising posters to read the facts) you'd see that I provided, immediately after your outrageous accusation, an exert from Pauls Feldman's book proving that I indeed own, and have read Paul Feldman's book.

Quoting some things in a book that's gathered dust on your shelf for 20 years is a limited form of proof. Not spouting the urban myths to attempt a cheap denunciation, now that would be proof to me that you or anyone else have any real insight into the case.

I am also waiting for your reply to Dr Strange's post, in which he contested your "belief" that you had read every word of the material printed in favour of the Diary being genuine.

Can you cite the post number? I can't see where that challenge was made of me?

Incidentally, just so we're clear, you can wait until Hell freezes over regarding issues like whether you've read a word of the journal or I've read every published book dedicated to the journal (I have, and it is four, not five - I assume we're not counting hardbacks and softbacks separately here????). But there can be no waiting for an answer to the core issue regarding the journal. Claims have been made about it and then not substantiated. The inevitable conclusion the real observer makes is that no substantiation of such claims is actually possible and that the issues were raised as obfuscation and out of ignorance of the facts.

To be clear about what I'm referring to here: The claim has been made that the journal and the watch marks were created no later than 1951 (I'll happily grant a few years more, by the way, if you wish) and yet the journal unequivocally cites evidence which was only published in 1987.

I'm not aware that serious commentators on any subject realistically hope to have it both ways - so let's have it, anyone, but ideally the postulating GUT who is now observing strict radio silence, how is this possible?

Just answer the question. Please don't post a reply that purports to be in response to the question but runs a million miles away from even addressing it never mind answering it. No obfuscation when you run out of myths. Just get to the point. How can this be possible? If it is true, then someone must be able to demonstrate how it is so? If it cannot be shown to be true, why would someone claim it, if not either through ignorance or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation?

Ike

[Observer]

The site is playing up it reckons the message I have entered before this one is less than 5 characters, when indeed many characters were employed thereof.

[Observer]

I'll try again.

[Observer]

No. I replied in length to the post 1876, and was informed the post needed to be more than 5 characters, now I've lost the post.

[Iconoclast]

No. I replied in length to the post 1876, and was informed the post needed to be more than 5 characters, now I've lost the post.

Fair enough. I accept you tried.

Ike

[Observer]

Very frustrating Ike, will reply when I get the time.

[IchabodCrane]

If your 'hoaxer' wrote the journal in 1950 (or indeed any time before 1987) how did he or she know to mention the two unpublished references to 'tin match box, empty' and Kelly's missing heart?

Maybe this has been answered many times before, but if the hoaxer knew about the missing heart, why did he write 'regret i could not take any of it away with me it is supper time, i could do with a kidney or two, ha ha' ? (Page 245). And he only mentioned to have taken the key away from the room (242f.), not any organs, whereas he mentioned that specifically for the Chapman and Eddowes murders.

[Graham]

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.

I'm not surprised that Melvin thought this, considering he was trying his level best to prove that the Diary was a modern production by the infamous Liverpool 'Nest Of Forgers'. It's too simple an argument to rubbish any kind of analytical or forensic test if its results do not agree with your beliefs; the A6 Case and DNA is another example.

Perhaps you could educate us with regard to the accepted techniques of artificially ageing paper?

It's even odder that the Teutonic twerp who forged the Hitler Diaries didn't even bother to use paper from the correct period, (and it fooled stuffed-shirt historians) yet here we are with a note-book, or whatever it was, without much doubt manufactured in the late 19th or early 20th century, on whose pages were written words using an ink which experts in this field state is 'not modern', which a modern analytical technique dates to around 1921, and it is still claimed that the damn thing is 'modern'? And forged by Michael Barrett, rest his soul? For the nth time, I don't believe that Maybrick was the Ripper, I don't believe that he wrote the bloody Diary, yet I do believe that it's an old hoax written by someone for purposes we appear no longer to be able to fathom....

.....Or don't we.....?

Graham

[David Orsam]

Graham,

Below is what Melvin Harris wrote about the ion-migration test in his article 'The Maybrick Hoax: A Fact-File for the Perplexed":

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/factfile.html

Can you tell us from a scientific perspective where he has gone wrong?

"They have also failed to grasp the limitations of the ink ion-migration test that they cite so often. This attempt to date the Diary ink was made by Roderick McNeil of Polson, Monatana. Using a technique known as 'scaning auger microscopy', McNeil asserts that he can measure the migration of tiny particles in the ink and from those measurements, calculate the time the ink has been on paper. Now, ion-migration tests have been used for over sixty years by document examiners, but no one except McNeil has ever claimed that such tests could be refined to provide accurate dating. Such tests have simply been used to determine the difference in age between two writings supposed to have been created at the same time and under the same conditions.

McNeil was given a chance to date the Diary ink by the Rendell examining body, since he made great claims for his 'perfected tests'. He calculated its date as 1921, plus or minus twelve years, a date that was in clear conflict with earlier tests and with the textual evidence which showed it to be a recent concoction. Later on McNeil accepted that his results could have been distorted by artificial ageing of the document, (heating in a oven can do this and that technique was well-known as a result of the massive publicity given to the fake Mussolini diaries which had been oven-aged.)

Perhaps more important, was his acknowledgement that the heavy, unsized paper of album used to create the Diary would have defeated his attempts to match up with reference samples. This has been stressed by Dr Joe Nickell in his book 'Detecting Forgery', he states:- "...current evidence shows he [McNeil] also obtained an erroneous date.. .for the forged Jack the Ripper diary, one potential problem having been the diary's unsized (and thus extra absorbent) paper. In contrast, a British examiner used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages." (page 194)"