One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Hi Caz,

am not up to clambering around to lay hands on my Ripper books at the moment, but wasn't someone doing the rounds, shortly after her trial, with a diary (or diaries), purported to have been written by Florence Maybrick? Why does the name Stewart Cumberland come to my mind?

Cheers,

Graham

This all rings bells, Graham, although the details are rather fuzzy round the edges at the moment and I too am not up to 'clambering around' to look it up. Maybe tomorrow...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

1. Baxendale, an experienced forensic document examiner, carried out an ink solubility test in the summer of 1992 and concluded that "the ink was found to be freely soluble, and I would have expected an ink applied to paper about a hundred years ago to be far less soluble, due to the effects of slow oxidation and other long term chemical reactions." He also appears to have concluded that the ink had been applied to the paper recently, within the previous two or three years. As far as I am aware, this conclusion remains unchanged.

'He also appears to have concluded...' May I ask for a source for the above, as you seem unsure of your ground for once? It's nothing like the conclusion Baxendale reached in his second, more detailed account of his reasoning.

2. Eastaugh, who confesses to not being a forensic document examiner, did not carry out an ink solubility test so his conclusions about solubility (whatever they were) are unclear and not understood.

Are you accusing Eastaugh of commenting on the solubility specifically, without actually being qualified to do so? He was quite 'clear' about this in his own mind.

3. You comment that Baxendale has stated that "the book" was manufactured in the late 19th century. It is not in dispute that the scrapbook is an old book.

Not by you, perhaps, but you should have seen some of the efforts over the years to push the guard book forcibly into the 20th century.

4. You also comment that Baxendale said that he would have expected ink applied in 1889 to be "far less soluble". Is that not consistent with his findings as set out in his report?

I can't recall mentioning consistency, but you'd know more about that if you can reconcile Baxendale's 'likely... since 1945' with two or three years max. But expecting something is not the same as knowing it beyond doubt, which is actually a point in his favour, since scientists ought never to presume to 'know' anything for a 100% certainty. I would have expected you to grasp many more of the points I have been making than you appear to grasp, but I'd be wrong. Or are you more concerned with trying to score linguistic points over me than addressing the real issues, such as how Mike expected his 'creation' to defy all attempts to date stamp it '1992'?

5. You also say that Baxendale conceded that if such a document were found to have a similar solubility, "there would appear to be nothing in the chemical properties of the ink in the Diary to preclude it being of similar age". But no-one is saying that there is anything in the chemical properties of the ink inconsistent with it being from 1888. The question is about solubility.

Don't blame me, David. It was Baxendale who wrote that in the context of the ink's solubility. Maybe he just wasn't in your league when it came to consistency and sticking to the point.

Is there a document from the nineteenth century with "similar solubility" to that of the Diary? If so, what is it? If not, why does Baxendale's finding from his report (as set out in para 1 above) not stand?

Unless Eastaugh was making it up, it was 'clear' to him that the inks from his Victorian reference material demonstrated a similar solubility to the diary ink.

Ultimately, one can either accept what the expert says or try to find a loophole...

That's unfair and unworthy of you. In the scientific world one should never 'accept' what the first expert says without others being able to repeat the tests, get the same results and reach the same conclusions. Asking for a second, third or fourth opinion won't guarantee a loophole if there isn't one, will it? You should have seen all the demands a few years back for 'more tests - new tests - do them now!' by one particularly vocal and pedantic modern hoax conspiracy theorist. He wasn't content with one opinion or twenty. He wanted as many as it took to get the desired result. Odd really, if you now think Baxendale's could have been the first and last word on the diary's obvious modernity.

Love,

Caz
X

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Caz,

am not up to clambering around to lay hands on my Ripper books at the moment, but wasn't someone doing the rounds, shortly after her trial, with a diary (or diaries), purported to have been written by Florence Maybrick? Why does the name Stewart Cumberland come to my mind?

Cheers,

Graham

I don't know if he had anything to do with the Maybrick trial, but Stuart Cumberland was a thought reader, there's an interview with him in the Evening News 10th Nov 1888 about how he might find Jack.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881110.html

[David Orsam]

No - read what I actually wrote, David, rather than what you imagine I may have meant. I went into some detail to explain, using plain English in common usage, the potential problem with Baxendale's apparently one-off personal interpretation of his ink solubility test result. Dr. Nick Eastaugh reported that it was 'clear' to him, when conducting his own tests just a short while after Baxendale, that the ink's solubility was similar to his Victorian reference material. So there's a 'clear' unresolved discrepancy here.....
So no, I was saying nothing about the competency of Baxendale, Eastaugh or my cat to 'carry out an ink solubility test'.

I certainly did read what you wrote Caz and I noted that you were ignoring a number of important factors.

1. Dr Eastaugh did not conduct a solubility test on the diary's ink.

2. Dr Eastaugh is not, in any event, an expert in questioned document examination. He is an expert in the scientific and art technological study of paint and paintings.

3. What Dr Eastaugh said about the solubility of the diary's ink is not understood (or able to be understood) and is not based on a solubility test.

4. Dr Baxendale is an expert in questioned document examination and he did conduct a solubility test on the diary's ink.

In view of the above, I find it quite extraordinary that you regard Dr Baxendale's conclusions regarding the solubility test as nothing more than his "personal interpretation". It is the opinion of the expert on this case who conducted a solubility test within months of the discovery of the diary. I fail to see how you can be doing anything other than questioning his competence.

[David Orsam]

I don't know if Baxendale reached his conclusion that 'an exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945' (which sounds to me quite unlike 'recently' penned, as in barely dry when he did the test in 1992) from comparing the solubility with a range of documents of known ages, or was merely expecting a Victorian ink to be far less soluble.

Wasn't this "originated since 1945" quote, that you have mentioned for the first time in this discussion said by Baxendale purely in the context of there being nigrosine in the ink?

In other words, it was on that basis that he concluded that the diary must have originated since 1945.

But it's separate from his findings about solubility isn't it? So bringing up that particular quote is, I think, only going to serve to confuse the issue.

[David Orsam]

'He also appears to have concluded...' May I ask for a source for the above, as you seem unsure of your ground for once? It's nothing like the conclusion Baxendale reached in his second, more detailed account of his reasoning.

Yes, the source is the Sunday Times report of 19 September 1993:

"For a document purportedly more than 100 years old, Baxendale would have expected the ink to take several minutes to begin to dissolve. In this case, says Baxendale, "it began to dissolve in just a few seconds." Baxendale concluded it had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years."

[David Orsam]

Are you accusing Eastaugh of commenting on the solubility specifically, without actually being qualified to do so? He was quite 'clear' about this in his own mind.

Yes, exactly. In your own book he confesses to not being a qualified forensic document examiner!

Do you actually understand what he said about solubility and can you explain it to me?

Let's take his statement:

"It was clear that the solubility of the ink was similar to the Victorian reference material and unlike the modern inks dried out for reference."

How is anything about the solubility of the ink "clear" without performing a solubility test? What Victorian reference material is he talking about? What does he mean by "modern inks dried out for reference"? What modern inks is he referring to and why were they "dried out"? Unless you can answer these questions I cannot imagine why you wish to rely on such a statement.

Given that this man is not a forensic document examiner, and did not conduct an ink solubility test, why are you relying on what he says over and above Dr Baxendale?

[David Orsam]

I can't recall mentioning consistency, but you'd know more about that if you can reconcile Baxendale's 'likely... since 1945' with two or three years max.

Yes, I believe I can reconcile it. The former statement relates to his findings in connection with nigrosine. The latter statement relates to his findings in connection with solubility.

[David Orsam]

But expecting something is not the same as knowing it beyond doubt, which is actually a point in his favour, since scientists ought never to presume to 'know' anything for a 100% certainty.

I have to remind you of a point I made earlier to you in this thread. I have not been relying on Baxendale in a positive sense to say that the diary is 100% fake.

Iconoclast asked me why I believed the diary was a modern forgery and I pointed to Dr Baxendale's findings. I only draw attention to those findings to show that my belief that the diary is a modern forgery is a perfectly reasonable one, consistent with the scientific evidence.

It ties in with other evidence too of course. I cited Melvin Harris earlier:

"In August and October 1993, independent visual examination of the Diary ink, by myself, by Dr Joe Nickell, by Kenneth Rendell, by Maureen Casey Owens and by Robert Kuranz, revealed no signs of ageing. We were all viewing a fresh, washed-out looking ink, that gave signs of having been diluted. So at that time there were six examinations that all pointed to one conclusion: the ink was new."

The Sunday Times also quoted Dr Audrey Giles as saying: "The make-up of the document can only be suspicious. There are many ink spots and smudges. These are features which in other forged documents appear to have been introduced in order to give an appearance of a soiled, well used manuscript."

I don't say that you can get 100% certainty but equally I don't think one can simply ignore or casually dismiss the findings that point to a modern forgery.

[David Orsam]

Odd really, if you now think Baxendale's could have been the first and last word on the diary's obvious modernity.

The problem is that solubility of ink must (by definition) change over time so I can't help regarding any solubility test conducted in the shortest time after production of the diary as being the most important.

[Iconoclast]

Just to be clear on this, Ike, I don't agree it's 'either authentic or a hoax'. I firmly believe it to be a hoax - a spoof if you will - that was very likely never expected, nor intended, to be taken as the genuine article by whoever came across it first. If it had been found a few decades earlier, in different circumstances and with none of the Barrett 'baggage' attached, I doubt anyone would have seen it as other than a prank, created by someone with an abiding interest in the infamous 1888 ripper murders and the infamous 1889 Maybrick trial. No money motive, more like playful mischief making.

Love,

Caz
X

Apologies Caz. As soon as I read my comment in your reply I realised I had written it without thinking it through.

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

But Caz you were suggesting that Barrett was intending to write out the text of the diary (presumably in a Victorian style handwriting), to show Doreen as if it was the actual 1888 diary of James Maybrick weren't you?

No. Once again, David, I would be much obliged if you would stick to reading what I wrote and not go off on flights of fancy concerning what you presume I was presuming.

And this would also have to have involved him removing any traces of it being an 1891 diary too wouldn't it?

Again, no. Not if Doreen asked him anything about the physical book he already claimed to have in his possession, how he knew it was a diary from the right period, and the nature of its contents.

So how would that not have involved Barrett presenting Doreen with a forged 1888 diary written by Maybrick?

Use your considerable imagination, David. He wanted to show her a 'taster' of what he had, before parting with his precious baby? He tried to obtain a similar book, with enough blank pages in which he could copy out a few choice phrases from the actual diary (in his own undisguised, inimitable late 20th century handwriting) so he could give Doreen a rough idea, without pretending this was anything other than his own doing?

I must say, for someone who has never met or spoken with Mike, drunk or sober (Mike, not you), and knows practically nothing about the man, you would have him do many more insane things before breakfast than anyone who can boast some real insight into his character. So I won't apologise if you find my suggestion implausible or reject it as too insane even for Mike. Now you have it cemented in place that a sober Mike could have created the diary in two weeks while standing on his head, you are stuck with only one possible explanation for his behaviour. I see that. It's just that I would actually have preferred to see some tangible evidence (obviously I'm not expecting it on this thread - or anywhere else frankly) that Mike was planning to deceive Doreen with a diary he knew to be a fake.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz

Could I pause for a moment in my replies to ask you to stop referring (even in parenthesis) to the "secret Battlecrease evidence" as if it is of any significance?

No. I realise why you don't find it 'helpful', but you can just keep putting your fingers in your ears and that'll be fine by me. Others might want to hear it and this is not a private conversation.

You might prefer it if I remained silent on the whole subject, but since Keith Skinner's Battlecrease documentation necessarily colours every observation I make, every response you and others ask me to give, it would not be realistic to expect me to disregard it, pretend it doesn't exist or allow it to be sidelined while I'm discussing closely related issues which are directly or indirectly affected by it.

As far as I am concerned it doesn't exist – by which I mean that whatever it is, it cannot be regarded at this time as being of any significance nor can it be taken into account in this discussion as a point in favour of the Diary being genuine.

However did you get the impression that the Battlecrease documentation (presumably conjured up in Keith's imagination) could be considered a point in favour of the diary being genuine? Not by me, it couldn't. No wonder you are spending so much time and effort on this thread, if that's what you fear so much that you would silence me on the matter.

Frankly, the fact you keep mentioning it reminds me of Pierre and his secret sources which are supposed to prove who Jack the Ripper was.

Charmed, I'm sure.

I don't accept that Pierre has proof of the identity of Jack the Ripper and likewise I don't accept that you have any proof that the diary came out of Battlecrease.

Your loss, not mine or Keith's, or all the others in the know. But I rather hope Keith is not reading along as your posts are becoming just a trifle ill-mannered in your desire to see dishonesty or incompetence whenever a potential challenge crops up to views you hold dear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Your loss, not mine or Keith's, or all the others in the know. But I rather hope Keith is not reading along as your posts are becoming just a trifle ill-mannered in your desire to see dishonesty or incompetence whenever a potential challenge crops up to views you hold dear.

Well said, Caz.

Graham

[caz]

Caz, it's not about setting aside my personal conviction that Mike was "as guilty as sin" because I don't have any such conviction.

Really, David? Yet almost in the next breath you write this:

It is the fact that Mike advertised for, sought out and purchased a Victorian diary with blank pages which itself leads me to the conclusion that Barrett must have been involved in forging the Diary. And the reason it leads me to this conclusion is that I cannot conceive of any explanation for him doing so which is consistent with innocence.

I want to stress that Caz. Even with a huge dose of imagination, I am literally unable to think of any reason why he could have placed such an advertisement if he was not planning to forge a Victorian diary.

I'm sorry to hear that, David, but I did suspect as much. I also suspect there is nowt to be done about it.

Yes, if Barrett wasn't responsible for forging it, or involved in the forgery, then of course there must be an innocent explanation - but that's the whole point.

Yes, that is the whole point, David. And since you are the one who claims - on this thread - that Mike must have been planning to forge the diary (and by extension the Battlecrease documentation must not exist, or at least must not prove your conclusion wrong beyond reasonable doubt), the onus is on you to demonstrate that there was no innocent explanation because he was indeed "as guilty as sin". How many people do you reckon saw the writing in the diary before Mike acquired it, or before he spoke to Doreen, or before he ordered the 1891 diary? Any ideas? None? One? Two or more? You don't know, do you? You have to presume there were none, don't you? And you have the luxury for now of not knowing stuff.

Love,

Caz
X