One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[erobitha]

Ike

I don't know if it is obvious to this thread's six followers, but it is obvious to me is that you two gentlemen have no explanation for what Baxendale observed.

I'm not even referring to his conclusions---simply his observations.

In July 1992, Baxendale observed the ink 'easily' dissolving in the solvent, leaving the paper almost blank except for a small amount of residue.

28 months later, Leeds bombarded a similar sample with ultrasonic waves, heated the solvent, and prayed that the ink would dissolve. It wouldn't.

You have no explanation. What is even more obvious: you don't want an explanation and you aren't about to go in search of one.

You simply don't want to hear it. You simply want to deny that Baxendale saw what he saw. This document examiner with the Home Office who was hired by Smith and Harrison and was working for them.

He told his clients what they didn't want to hear, and for that he has received his lumps.

But it's fine. I get it.

Diary belief is a faith-based religion and requires that the believer ignore pesky little details like unbonded ink, police inventory lists not published until the 1980s, bogus research notes, advertisements for diaries "with at least twenty blank pages," handwriting that looks nothing like Maybrick's, a man who refers to his wife's godmother as her aunt, trace amounts of chloroacetamide, and above all, perhaps, the antics of Michael Barrett and Anne Graham.

Happy believing.

Tweedle dum here. An observation is not documented proof.

Edgar Mitchell, sixth man on the moon, highly qualified and decorated astronaut before he died claimed aliens exist and they are in communication with our governments. Is that proof aliens exist? His credentials should stand up right? So we just believe him?

Or perhaps he may have been mistaken. Were there other factors at play for him to make that statement? Did he have a bias influenced by something or someone?

I believe there is a reasonable explanation to explain what Bxendale "observed". An observation cannot be trusted as being scientifically sound - it needs to be reproduced.

When you take about faith-based beliefs you seem rather happy to give praise at the altar at Baxendale on the exact same basis you accuse others of doing with the diary.

[rjpalmer]

Ike

I don't know if it is obvious to this thread's six followers, but it is obvious to me is that you two gentlemen have no explanation for what Baxendale observed.

I'm not even referring to his conclusions---simply his observations.

In July 1992, Baxendale observed the ink 'easily' dissolving in the solvent, leaving the paper almost blank except for a small amount of residue.

28 months later, Leeds bombarded a similar sample with ultrasonic waves, heated the solvent, and prayed that the ink would dissolve. It wouldn't.

You have no explanation. What is even more obvious: you don't want an explanation and you aren't about to go in search of one.

You simply don't want to hear it. You simply want to deny that Baxendale saw what he saw. This document examiner with the Home Office who was hired by Smith and Harrison and was working for them.

He told his clients what they didn't want to hear, and for that he has received his lumps.

But it's fine. I get it.

Diary belief is a faith-based religion and requires that the believer ignore pesky little details like unbonded ink, police inventory lists not published until the 1980s, bogus research notes, advertisements for diaries "with at least twenty blank pages," handwriting that looks nothing like Maybrick's, a man who refers to his wife's godmother as her aunt, trace amounts of chloroacetamide, and above all, perhaps, the antics of Michael Barrett and Anne Graham.

Happy believing.

[rjpalmer]

So the conclusive Baxendale report was dare I say it, not all that conclusive?

I take back the bit about Ike resembling the Mad Hatter or the March Hare.

Ike clearly resembles Tweedle Dee.

[Iconoclast]

Dear Readers,

I don't recall whether I posted this a few months ago (I have a vague memory of doing so) but I found it well-made and I loved the reconstructions. Might be one to check out if you have a spare 1 hour 9 minutes and 8 seconds available before the Women's Euros kick off next week (the host nation, of course, is En-ger-laand!) ...

(117) The Enduring Mystery of Jack the Ripper - YouTube

Ike

[Iconoclast]

So the conclusive Baxendale report was dare I say it, not all that conclusive?

Hi ero b,

I think it would be reasonable of any reasonable person to conclude that Baxendale had quickly fixed a mindset before digging into the scrapbook. He looked at it and - in fairness, not unreasonably - thought "**** me, this is a piece of mince. Money for old rope here, matey. It's a blindingly obvious hoax so I'll cobble together a few headings, tell the client what the scrapbook looks like as he's presumably blind, and then pocket the holiday money. Could be in court in less than an hour if I'm really quick".

Once he realised he was dealing with people who wanted an in-depth analysis and would not be fobbed-off with a superficial review, he may very well have gone back to whatever materials he was supplied with and did a proper analysis and then supplied Robert Smith with something of substance which may or may not have properly identified that the ink was still dripping off the page if you spilled your tea over it. But I doubt it. Until this second report (July 9, 1992) is available to us to review, we'll simply never know. Maybe Robert's still got a copy?

All-in-all, 'conclusive' is a long way down my list of descriptors for Baxendale's report, ero. Unless - of course - you include the entry which begins with an 'i' and is followed by an 'n'.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Yet, by all appearances, you are only now discovering that Baxendale noted that the ink was unbonded to the paper in 1992, but your only reaction is to slap your knee and make more lame jokes about people who are not even posting on this site.

And whilst I'm not on the subject, RJ, can you confirm that you have formally written to your Master, Lord Orsam, berating him for his - shall we say - less than kind comments about me on his - shall we say - building site of internet pages?

I assume - like me - that everyone here checks in every few months to see what myopic bias he's pouring down his drainpipes as he attempts to construct an argument, and quickly gives up when they can't find what they're looking for, and then get lost in his conflicting sections. Should I be in News? How about Articles? How do I find out what he's got to say about Baxendale? Honestly, like all building sites, it's an absolute guddle, but this one just cannot seem to get around to putting the roof on.

So, yes, I make fun of the strident monster that is his ego, but - if you're going to criticise me for it - make sure you do the same to him.

My arse.

[Iconoclast]

i presume you visited Whitechapel also !

Indeed I did, Milky, though only briefly. My favourite bit was taking selfies at the chip shop in Goulston Street and imagining James Maybrick writing his famous graffito on the jamb of the entrance (still there but now bricked-over) at that very spot before depositing Eddowes' apron as an alert to the police. Also, delighted to see that there was a clear line of sight to Middlesex Street (some debate as to whether or not there was in 1888) which you will see is relevant to my GSG theory in my brilliant Society's Pillar.

[erobitha]

It is interesting and illuminating to return to Baxendale's original July 1, 1992, report for Robert Smith and assess exactly what level of scientific analysis he applied to the scrapbook. Baxendale writes (in his remarkably brief and utterly superficial report) on five subject headings.

The Paper

He notes that it is unbleached and contains no optical brighteners. It consists of mainly cotton fibres. So he's done some level of analysis, though he quickly reverts to describing the structure of the scrapbook which Robert Smith could equally (and less expensively) have employed his neighbour to do or he could have done it himself by just looking at it.

Impressions

He notes that he has looked at the fly pages and the first pages to see if he can see any signs of what had been written on the missing pages but he can't see any signs

Stains

He then notes that there are stains which he soon establishes is glue. Ultraviolet light and microscopy are employed to achieve this.

Ink

Microscopy is employed to establish that the lines were written with separate pen and ink. He then comments on what he can see and from that he deduces that there is no suggestion of an iron-gall ink. He then uses his eyes again to establish that the ink is evenly distributed therefore is likely to have been a free-flowing ink.

Handwriting

He then gives his views about the handwriting. This forms the largest section of his report and was not what Robert Smith had asked for.

And that's it, folks. That's the sum of Baxendale's analysis of the scrapbook. His last line is "I therefore regard the handwriting in this book with suspicion", and then he gives his name.

If any of you are overwhelmed by the analysis, I suggest you ask a four-year-old child to explain it to you. If any of you are confused by the statistical breakdown of the composition of the ink, for example, I suggest you turn to any one of the other reports which were commissioned as Baxendale provided none.

Baxendale pulled together a quick report using mainly prima facie evidence to conclude that the handwriting made the book suspicious. No mention that this is just a preliminary report and that more is due in the next few days. No mention of solubility. That all appears out of nowhere a week later when he's being challenged by Smith, Montgomery, and Harrison. No mention of nigrosine and pretty much no mention of anything that wasn't just his eyeballed opinion.

And this is the report Orsam and RJ want you to believe killed the scrapbook stone dead.

My arse.

So the conclusive Baxendale report was dare I say it, not all that conclusive?

[milchmanuk]

Yes and no. I wrote it but it's a summary of other people's work (as best I knew it when I wrote it which was 2019, I think). It was originally designed so that I could reply to every statement or question, "My opinion is in my brilliant Society's Pillar" to save myself from having to repeat myself endlessly here on the Casebook but I never quite got around to saying that.

Everyone thinks it's brilliant, mind. The 2025 version is going to be super brilliant (as if that were possible).

Ike

i presume you visited Whitechapel also !

[Iconoclast]

is this your own book?

Yes and no. I wrote it but it's a summary of other people's work (as best I knew it when I wrote it which was 2019, I think). It was originally designed so that I could reply to every statement or question, "My opinion is in my brilliant Society's Pillar" to save myself from having to repeat myself endlessly here on the Casebook but I never quite got around to saying that.

Everyone thinks it's brilliant, mind. The 2025 version is going to be super brilliant (as if that were possible).

Ike

[milchmanuk]

If you hang around until 2025, there'll be an even more brilliant version ...

is this your own book?

[Iconoclast]

thx for that book in the drobox i only just realized it !
i try and read the weekend.

If you hang around until 2025, there'll be an even more brilliant version ...

[milchmanuk]

thx for that book in the drobox i only just realized it !
i try and read the weekend.

[Iconoclast]

By the way, Ike: how in the blazes does the following make the least bit of sense?

How would ASKING FOR PERMISSION to post the full repot peg you as 'unreliable'? If they agree to allow it, what's the problem?

This is a non-answer and is evasive.

Further, you've already posted extracts from various reports--yet you tell us that you have never asked for permission (!)

That would require that I remember where I got it from and that would be a challenge given that my folder count is now at 329. That's 329 folders of discreet events and information, not 329 items. I make no apologies for not remembering from where I received each and every item I have in my 'vault'. When I receive something, I don't seek permission to share it primarily because it is not my material to share. Yes, I posted some screen clips from Baxendale. My bad.

Talking to you, Ike, is like talking to the Mad Hatter or the March Hare.

You are welcome, RJ.

But--it is entirely up to you. If you are not willing to help secure all the necessary documentation for a rational discussion of the forensics, then there is no point continuing.

I will just about get over it, RJ.

You're not a serious person, Ike. Every post demonstrates that.

You mustn't confuse my good-natured, handsome banter for insincerity, petal.

You said (falsely) that I'm the only one who has mentioned the damning results of Baxendale's solubility test--as if this is a good argument for dismissing Baxendale's observations.

You are unequivocally the only poster who ever mentions it on anything like an industrial scale. If someone once mentioned it en passant, I don't recall it.

All that silly comment really did was to expose how little you stray outside the safe space of Paul Feldman's The Final Chapter.

The difference between us, RJ, is that you take yourself unbearably seriously far too often. Honestly, I can almost hear the spirit of Orsam bellowing out of your fury.

Melvin's dissertation mentioning Baxendale's solubility test was posted on this site--yes, 25 years ago--but it was also still here yesterday, and it is still here now. You could have read it at any time.

That's great. Would it not be helpful to our dear readers to include a link so that we can all find it quickly?

Maurice Chittenden's account of the Maybrick Hoax in The Sunday Times is one of the seminal sources for information about the diary and your ignorance of its contents is nothing short of breathtaking.

Honestly, I have literally just wet myself! Maurice "We won't be fooled a third time" Chittenden - written in confirmation that the dumbass Sunday Times had managed the hat-trick to end all hat-tricks? Please, he wasn't even a credible journalist never mind a credible commentator on the Maybrick scrapbook. Like so many detractors, he started from the position that it must be a hoax, he courted every possible aspect which might confirm his assumptions, and when he couldn't actually prove his point he did what all great journalistic bullies do, he published a banner headline ("Fake!") which was so far from supported in the following text that it may as well have read "England won the Battle of Hastings!".

Baxendale's solubility test was also discussed on page 224 of Richard Whittington-Egan's last book, Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Casebook (which has a long chapter on 'The Great Hoax') and this was published in 2013.

OMG, RJ, what possible relevance can this have? Am I supposed to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of where everything is printed?

Harris, Chittenden, Warren, Whittington-Egan, Palmer, Barrat, et alia - what do they all have in common? They all assumed that the Victorian scrapbook was a hoax so everything they wrote about it was tinted by the assumption. In certain cases, still is being tinted.

Yet, by all appearances, you are only now discovering that Baxendale noted that the ink was unbonded to the paper in 1992 ...

I've never taken your little obsession seriously, RJ, because it was so rarely ever mentioned and recently only ever mentioned by you. My apologies if chemistry ain't my strong point. I'm ever so 'umbled, RJ. Apologies if I believe that the Victorian scrapbook is proven by things other than chemistry, and equally that chemistry has done very little indeed to destroy the scrapbook. Apologies if I find Baxendale's report (which he rapidly retracted as soon as he realised he hadn't done a good enough job on it) worryingly inept. Inept, you say? How so? Oh, just the small matter of sending a client a report with no indication that further conclusions are to be drawn and yet completely failing to mention the thing he later relied on in court, as it were. Such an omission is what mind-boggling is defined by 'round here.

"... but your only reaction is to slap your knee and make more lame jokes about people who are not even posting on this site."

I enjoy slapping my knee, thank you, and they are not lame jokes - they are merely observations about probably the strangest website in history (you know, the only where you have to zoom in to read it according to its creator).

If you ever become serious, let me know

Problem is, RJ, I am serious - you just don't like the way I do serious occasionally. That's your prerogative, of course, but I most definitely won't be letting you or anyone else know when I'm being Very Serious Indeed.

... and we can try to discuss the ink. But we need ALL the documents.

It sounds to me that you don't like my style of writing so why would you want to discuss the ink with me? Would it be more advisable for you to do so with someone who is Very Serious Indeed?

Ike
Once Again - For Clarity - I Do Not Give a **** About What People Think

[rjpalmer]

By the way, Ike: how in the blazes does the following make the least bit of sense?

When I received (and indeed still receive) material from different sources, I do so on the unwritten premise that it stays with me unless I am explicitly given the right to share it. I've never asked for such permission, and I don't intend to start as I wouldn't want any of my sources to think I am unreliable in any way.

How would ASKING FOR PERMISSION to post the full repot peg you as 'unreliable'? If they agree to allow it, what's the problem?

This is a non-answer and is evasive.

Further, you've already posted extracts from various reports--yet you tell us that you have never asked for permission (!)

Talking to you, Ike, is like talking to the Mad Hatter or the March Hare.

But--it is entirely up to you. If you are not willing to help secure all the necessary documentation for a rational discussion of the forensics, then there is no point continuing.

P.S.

Quoting folk who mentioned it almost thirty years ago literally made me laugh out loud - how desperate you must be to be right! You've clearly been spending far too much time around the Teddy Boy himself (think about it), Lord Algernon Ronald Sebastion Edward Orsam (think about it), the First (and, thankfully, presumably the only).

You're not a serious person, Ike. Every post demonstrates that.

You said (falsely) that I'm the only one who has mentioned the damning results of Baxendale's solubility test--as if this is a good argument for dismissing Baxendale's observations.

All that silly comment really did was to expose how little you stray outside the safe space of Paul Feldman's The Final Chapter.

Melvin's dissertation mentioning Baxendale's solubility test was posted on this site--yes, 25 years ago--but it was also still here yesterday, and it is still here now. You could have read it at any time.

Maurice Chittenden's account of the Maybrick Hoax in The Sunday Times is one of the seminal sources for information about the diary and your ignorance of its contents is nothing short of breathtaking.

Baxendale's solubility test was also discussed on page 224 of Richard Whittington-Egan's last book, Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Casebook (which has a long chapter on 'The Great Hoax') and this was published in 2013.

Yet, by all appearances, you are only now discovering that Baxendale noted that the ink was unbonded to the paper in 1992, but your only reaction is to slap your knee and make more lame jokes about people who are not even posting on this site.

If you ever become serious, let me know and we can try to discuss the ink. But we need ALL the documents.