One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Graham]

Well, well, well! If it isn't Mr Orsam!

look mate, I don't believe any more than you do that the sodding Diary was written by Jack The Frigging Ripper in the shape of James Maybrick or the woman who came to his house on Fridays to clean the drains. Neither do I believe that it was written by a Scouse scallywag and his missus sometime within the last 20-odd years. But I do believe that it is not a modern scam, and until you or anyone else can produce inarguable information to the effect that it is not old, I will continue to believe that it is.

Oh, and can you perhaps produce inarguable evidence that Rod McNeil actually claimed that the IMA is actually accurate to say within one year? And can you also enlighten us with regard to 'artificial ageing' of a document, in which you appear to set such store?

The fact, that you appear to deliberately miss, is that McNeil failed to show, to the disappointment of such luminaries as Harris, Nickell, and a fair few others, that the Diary is modern.

Graham

[David Orsam]

Hello Mr "Boring" Orsam,

look mate, I don't believe any more than you do that the sodding Diary was written by Jack The Frigging Ripper in the shape of James Maybrick or the woman who came to his house on Fridays to clean the drains. Neither do I believe that it was written by a Scouse scallywag and his missus sometime within the last 20-odd years. But I do believe that it is not a modern scam, and until you or anyone else can produce inarguable information to the effect that it is not old, I will continue to believe that it is.

Oh, and can you perhaps produce inarguable evidence that Rod McNeil actually claimed that the IMA is actually accurate to say within one year? And can you also enlighten us with regard to 'artificial ageing' of a document, in which you appear to set such store?

The fact, that you appear to deliberately miss, is that McNeil failed to show, to the disappointment of such luminaries as Harris, Nickell, and a fair few others, that the Diary is modern.

Graham, I suppose I could come up with a rude nickname for you in response but apart from (I'm sure) being in breach of forum rules, such things seem a bit silly to me.

It's strange that you tell me what I believe or that I have somehow "deliberately missed" something. If you actually read my post you will see that I was making no positive statement whatsoever about the diary. Consequently I wasn't expecting to be asked questions about things in which I "appear to set such store" nor to produce evidence to support claims I haven't made. All I did was ask you to tell me where Harris has gone wrong about the ion-migration test from a scientific perspective.

Does your answer (or lack of one) mean you are unable to do so?

[Iconoclast]

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.

Please let's not get distracted (again).

Let's address one issue and then the next.

I want to know how a document and watch marks laid down in or around 1951 (or earlier, Graham), could contain the two references which were not published until 1987.

PS Please don't let this postscript turn you away from my question, but her heart was not in her body - that's what the autopsy stated. That's not the same as saying Jack took the heart away with him. It's a wholly different argument and I would ask that for once we stay on point and resolve this critical question before we go off on tangents and lose track (like we normally do).

[David Orsam]

Well, well, well! If it isn't Mr Orsam!

Heh! At least you had second thoughts and corrected the nickname, a bit late though after I'd quoted you (sorry!). Glad you evidently agree with me that such things are silly.

I was posting to try and gain insight and understanding about the ion-migration test. If you are able to provide it then please do so, if you can't then fine.

[Graham]

Mr Orsthing,

I must be in a good mood tonight....

Ion migration as an analytical technique is established. That's about all I can say about it. There's a load about it on the internet.

All I am saying - and I think you already know this - is that McNeil's analysis showed that the Diary is not modern, but his findings failed to mesh in with the belief of certain other people, i.e., Kenneth Rendell who, I believe, financed McNeil's analysis. Again - God, I'm getting tired of repeating this - I do NOT believe that Maybrick either wrote the Diary or was Jack The Frigging Ripper; neither do I believe as some plainly do that Michael Barrett et al wrote it for a spot of innocent fun.

All right?

Graham

PS: where is Pinkmoon during all this debate?

[GUT]

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



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 ...



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.



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

Mainly because I don't stay up all night dealing with idiotic theories. Or any other for that matter, but of course you have no idea where in the world I am do you?

[David Orsam]

Ion migration as an analytical technique is established. That's about all I can say about it. There's a load about it on the internet.
....
Again - God, I'm getting tired of repeating this - I do NOT believe that Maybrick either wrote the Diary or was Jack The Frigging Ripper; neither do I believe as some plainly do that Michael Barrett et al wrote it for a spot of innocent fun.

All right?

I wasn't asking you who wrote the diary, Graham, or when it was written, so please put those things out of your mind. I was asking you if Harris' analysis of the ion-migration test is flawed from a scientific perspective. I was asking you because you seemed to be saying you know something about it but if all you can say about it is that it is an established technique then I will trouble you no longer.

[Graham]

I wasn't asking you who wrote the diary, Graham, or when it was written, so please put those things out of your mind. I was asking you if Harris' analysis of the ion-migration test is flawed from a scientific perspective. I was asking you because you seemed to be saying you know something about it but if all you can say about it is that it is an established technique then I will trouble you no longer.

David,

please listen carefully, because Ah shall say theese ahnly warnce:

Harris never did an 'analysis' of the ion migration test. All he did was to express an opinion. His opinion was that the test was flawed, because he, Harris, had staked his life, fortune and reputation on the Diary being a modern hoax.

Graham

[David Orsam]

David,

please listen carefully, because Ah shall say theese ahnly warnce:

Harris never did an 'analysis' of the ion migration test. All he did was to express an opinion. His opinion was that the test was flawed, because he, Harris, had staked his life, fortune and reputation on the Diary being a modern hoax.

I hear what you say Graham but I don't understand what you mean when you say that Harris never did an analysis of the ion-migration test because I have already quoted that very analysis (and let's hope you are not going to debate with me the meaning of the word "analysis"). The question is: is it right or wrong?

If it assists, I will highlight in bold the parts that I would like assistance on.

"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)"

[Iconoclast]

Mainly because I don't stay up all night dealing with idiotic theories. Or any other for that matter, but of course you have no idea where in the world I am do you?

Your sleeping I can comfortably accept. I do a fair bit of it myself - indeed, after 30 mins of Linder et al (and definitely not because of that, Caz!) I shall also be in the land of Nod until morning.

But your avoiding answering the question I cannot accept. You made a mighty play about the journal and the watch being circa 1951 yesterday, today, or whatever timezone you're in, and I asked you to back up this assertion by clarifying how the two unpublished facts made their way into a journal you say must have been created no later than 1951.

I'd like an answer, please.

PS I honestly have no interest in where you live.

[GUT]

Your sleeping I can comfortably accept. I do a fair bit of it myself - indeed, after 30 mins of Linder et al (and definitely not because of that, Caz!) I shall also be in the land of Nod until morning.

But your avoiding answering the question I cannot accept. You made a mighty play about the journal and the watch being circa 1951 yesterday, today, or whatever timezone you're in, and I asked you to back up this assertion by clarifying how the two unpublished facts made their way into a journal you say must have been created no later than 1951.

I'd like an answer, please.

PS I honestly have no interest in where you live.

Well tough, after accusing me of avoiding the issue because it was night here you can go fish, I have no desire to involve in debate with someone who accuses one of running away, simply because they are in different time zones, typical of some in this site and it seems this thread, so to use your radio analogy over and out I am now off the air.

Oh by the way the answer is actually simple if you take the blinkers off.

[GUT]

When you posted your allegation that I had gone off the air because I couldn't answer you it was 1:00 am here.

[Iconoclast]

Well tough, after accusing me of avoiding the issue because it was night here you can go fish, I have no desire to involve in debate with someone who accuses one of running away, simply because they are in different time zones, typical of some in this site and it seems this thread, so to use your radio analogy over and out I am now off the air.

Oh by the way the answer is actually simple if you take the blinkers off.

Aussie Dave,

I deeply regret handing you any excuse to avoid answering the question which your pontificating created.

I don't think you'll have fooled many people with your sudden radio silence. It's, of course, because the bluff and bluster has run into a brick wall - you have made the claim that the journal and the watch marks were created around 1951, and then cannot explain how unpublished material was captured in the journal 30 years before it was released to the public.

And then you compound this by claiming there is a simple answer if I remove my 'blinkers' but, of course, you do not provide it.

Such insight - congratulations. Shame my comments have caused you such deep offence that you tragically can't reveal the hoax now to this threads hundreds or thousands of readers.

Ah well, I think I'll still sleep at night ...

Ike

[IchabodCrane]

Please let's not get distracted (again).

Let's address one issue and then the next.

I want to know how a document and watch marks laid down in or around 1951 (or earlier, Graham), could contain the two references which were not published until 1987.

PS Please don't let this postscript turn you away from my question, but her heart was not in her body - that's what the autopsy stated. That's not the same as saying Jack took the heart away with him. It's a wholly different argument and I would ask that for once we stay on point and resolve this critical question before we go off on tangents and lose track (like we normally do).

Hi Iconoclast,
I am really not deep into the Maybrick diary controversy, but in some newspapers published after 11-9 there are references to missing organs, e.g. SOME PORTIONS OF THE BODY ARE MISSING (The Star Nov 13), 'a certain organ being reported missing' (East London Observer 17 Nov 1888). So there was definitely some information leaked from the autopsy report available in the 'public domain'. In this context it is interesting to note that the diary does not mention the heart at all, except in the somewhat cryptic expression The Woman Kelly, No Heart, No Heart.

When discussing the reappearance of Bond's report in 1987, I have noted with interest that the location stated by the diary for the breasts (on the table) does not match the details of the report by Dr. Bond (below her head and next to the right foot). This is of course strong indication against a modern forgery, but also strong indication against Maybrick as the Ripper.

Also of course the inventory of organ locations made by Dr Bond is quite comprehensive but does not mention the heart, as was noted in the essay 'Did Kelly have a heart' on this website.

As for the watch, what information from 1987 is there on the watch? Of course the name Jack and the initials of the victims were available for all newspaper readers, to engrave them on a watch.

Thanks in advance, and apologies if i am asking for some obvious answers here,
IchabodCrane

[Harry D]

If you were a hoaxer, you might add the victim's initials to give it an air of authenticity. In reality, I doubt the killer gave a tuppence what the victim's names were.