One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Or, as Martin Fido put it,

"a disastrous emergence of something from nowhere."

I think he was referring to the universe, RJ.

[rjpalmer]

The Barretts had no hand whatsoever in the creation of the Victorian scrapbook.

Yes, that's what you keep claiming, Ike, but you've yet to give a single "incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable fact" that proves they couldn't have.

That's what I find so hilarious. You won't touch your own methods with a ten-foot pole!

Just a single fact will do. Still waiting...

[Iconoclast]

Yes, that's what you keep claiming, Ike, but you've yet to give a single "incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable fact" that proves they couldn't have.

That's what I find so hilarious. You won't touch your own methods with a ten-foot pole!

Just a single fact will do. Still waiting...

Apologies, RJ, I must have missed that particular memo (Mrs I and I have been very busy recently, granted). I wasn't aware you were awaiting "a single "incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable fact" that proves" the Barretts couldn't have pulled off the hoax of the recent century.

The reality is that we are still here talking about it so it clearly does not exist. But that's great as far as I am concerned because what is true of the Barretts is true of James Maybrick - there is still no "incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable fact" that proves he didn't write the scrapbook.

There are strong reasons for doubting the Barrett story, mind, and I don't think they are on the same level as the superficial criticisms of the James Maybrick theory. Just literally one example right there off the top of my head. According to Lord Orsam (therefore also you), the Barretts finished their hoax on Sunday, April 12, 1992. They put their pens away and hid the ink, et cetera, and then the next day Mike travelled down to London to meet the Rupert Crew crew. Shirley Harrison soon had the idea of taking the freshly-written scrapbook to the nearby British Museum where the curator - the wonderfully-inappropriately named Robert Smith (no, not doubling up as the eventual publisher of the first book on the subject) felt that it looked authentic. Harrison then took it to the antiquarian bookseller Jarndyce's next door where owner Brian Lake (a specialist in 19th-century literature) claimed that it looked exciting and advised that it was taken to a forensic scientist.

Now neither of these claims were a ringing endorsement for authenticity and antiquity and I would never suggest that they were (I hope). What is interesting is the simple fact that these two gentlemen were fooled by a document which had literally only been finished the day before! Now wouldn't that just cork you?

I accept that you must reserve the right to lay the finger at the door of the Barretts, but it would be decent of you to at least acknowledge that the Barrett theory comes with a remarkable amount of baggage which can only pour scorn on the possibility that the text was brand spanking new on April 13, 1992. Of course, if you then backtrack Mike's affy David and accept that it was written in 1990 or 1991, you have to sacrifice your Queen in the 1891 maroon diary which can no longer form a plank of your revised theory because - hard dates, remember - we know it was ordered in March 1992 when Mike's fears about the stolen property being reclaimed from him were at their height.

So I can't controvert it, but I can certainly light a match underneath the waiting bonfire of the Barrett theory.

Hope that helps you, RJ.

Ike

[erobitha]

Wasn't Mike supposed to have soaked the old book in Linseed Oil and then bake it in the oven? I am trying to establish in RJs' timeline exactly when did this happen?

According to the sources I can find, Linseed Oil (have never used any myself), has a very distinct odour that would last for a month or so. Did any of the early document examiners detect a smell of any kind?

[rjpalmer]

Shirley Harrison soon had the idea of taking the freshly-written scrapbook to the nearby British Museum where the curator - the wonderfully-inappropriately named Robert Smith (no, not doubling up as the eventual publisher of the first book on the subject) felt that it looked authentic. Harrison then took it to the antiquarian bookseller Jarndyce's next door where owner Brian Lake (a specialist in 19th-century literature) claimed that it looked exciting and advised that it was taken to a forensic scientist.

Hi Ike - Can we clear up one small matter before we proceed any further?

After all these years of study, do you and Mr. Hartley still labor under the impression that a 'freshly-written' manuscript drips with iron gall ink the day after it was written?

Or even an hour after it was written?

Do you think you can smudge it with your fingers and they will be left all black and inky? Or that the ink will run off the page if you lift it vertically in the air?

It's a rather ridiculous and insulting question to ask--but judging from comments that you (and especially Jay Hartley) have made in the past, it really does need to be asked.

In this age of cell phones and computers, is it possible that you and Mr. Hartley have never actually used a fountain pen or manuscript ink, or even paper and pen?

If this is the case, let me just explain that after a few minutes, or after blotting paper has been applied, the ink will be dry to the touch, and once dried, a manuscript that was written ten months ago will look precisely the same as one written yesterday. It may even look the same after many years, provided the ink hasn't started to crack or bronze, or the gum arabic hasn't begun to eat away at the paper (which is sometimes the case).

Clearly, if Mr. Lake advised Harrison that she needed to consult a forensic specialist, he was acknowledging that he couldn't know for certain how old the document was merely by looking at it.

And when Harrison did consult a forensic specialist--Dr. David Baxendale with 25 years' experience at the Home Office--and he placed a sample of the diary's ink and paper into a diluted solvent, what did he observe?

If you and Hartley really want the truth (and at least Hartley has admitted that he does) be careful how you answer this question, because before the week is out, I guarantee that Caz Brown will come running into the room will all sorts of silly and misguided statements about iron, etc.

I don't care about any of that. I'm not asking you to believe or disbelieve Dr. Baxendale's conclusions, opinions, etc.

I'm asking you this:

What did he observe?

And remember--despite the ugly claims of Paul Butler that you repeated in Society's Pillar--Baxendale was working for Harrison and Smith.

He was their boy.

What did he observe?

[erobitha]

Solubility is not reflective of immediacy, as you have so clearly demonstrated.

It is possible the solubility you are clearly referring to can also occur to paper that is stored in a dark place over a long period of time. Lack of UV and oxygen play a major role in this. It would be interesting to all if Mr Baxendale was able to clarify what environmental effects could create the same results outside of normal expected environments. In say, I don't know, an air tight biscuit tin under some floorboards.

It is right and proper experts are pushed and challenged on their findings from all sides.

Do you have any ink experts willing to stake their professional reputation on the fact it would simply be "impossible" for any solubility to occur under the right environmental conditions?

If so, then I am open to what that means.

[rjpalmer]

Solubility is not reflective of immediacy, as you have so clearly demonstrated.

Sorry Old Man, but what is this nonsensical phrase supposed to mean? How have I demonstrated this?

You don't seem to appreciate the difference between ink drying to the touch, and the fact that iron gall ink, given time and oxygen, bonds to paper fibers at a chemical level.

Unlike drying, this process can take several months or even a few years to complete and is not the same as the ink simply being dry to the touch. Iron gall ink has been extensively studied by archivists and document examiners and there is no doubt whatsoever that it eventually bonds permanently to paper fibers and in some cases will even start to eat away the paper, which is one of the main reasons archivists have studied it.

UV radiation has sod-all to do with it. All it takes is time and oxygen. And a book sitting closed on a shelf, or even under floorboards or in a biscuit tin, is surrounded by oxygen. How do you think mildew and mold and bookworms and micro-organisms can live inside books if there is no oxygen in them? Yet live in them they often do, even if the book has sat unopened in a library or dark attic for decades.

Think for a moment about what you are suggesting.

If unknown environmental factors could prevent ink from bonding to the paper, there would be no point in a document examiner ever conducting an ink solubility test, because a questioned document always has an unknown or uncertain provenance. The fact that ink reliably bonds to paper is the whole principle behind conducting such tests.

Are you suggesting that keeping the diary under the floorboards (for which there is no evidence, of course) would keep the ink in a state of suspended animation for 100 years?

Let's return to Dr. Baxendale.

Recall that Baxendale had paper and ink samples that he KNEW were old. He tested these, too, in the same solvent.

The sample from 1908, when placed in the solution, was "virtually insoluble."

Another from 1925, was "similarly insoluble."

The ink and the paper wouldn't separate.

By contrast, the ink sample from the Maybrick Diary quickly separated from the paper, was 'free flowing,' dissolved "easily," (Dr. B's word) and most damning of all, left the paper almost blank.

The ink and paper were slightly bonded, but barely so, and this was in late 1992.

'In my opinion, therefore, the ink does not date from 1889. An exact time of origin cannot be established but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945'

Dr. B was apparently being overly cautious in his report to Harrison, because he also told Chittenden at the Sunday Times that he didn't think the document was more than 2 or 3 years old.

Even here Dr. Baxendale was overly cautious, because the diary was actually less than seven months old when he tested it. It originated in March/April 1992.

We know this because of what happened next.

[rjpalmer]

I can't say I've ever seen a 'looser' book than the guard-book. Due to the spacers, oxygen would flow freely into it--not that that would matter, anyway.

And look how worn it is. How did it get so banged up and worn living inside a giant biscuit tin for 103 years?

[erobitha]

I can't say I've ever seen a 'looser' book than the guard-book. Due to the spacers, oxygen would flow freely into it--not that that would matter, anyway.

And look how worn it is. How did it get so banged up and worn living inside a giant biscuit tin for 103 years?

I am not going through every micro point with you as it gets us nowhere.

UV affects the bronzing of the ink - hence the reference. If the book was subjected to high levels of oxygen we would expect the paper itself to be much yellower - regardless of the ink.

We agree the book is from around the late Victorian period - give or take a few years either side.

Despite the expected wear and tear of the spine (it had a life before it became the ‘Maybrick Diary’), the paper should be much more sepia in colour if left exposed to a normal environment. That oxygen thing you know so much about causes that effect - and in conjunction with UV, the bronzing of the ink also.

The samples you refer to that Baxendale used to compare were samples subjected to a normal environment. It was never considered at that time that that the book might have been in a unique environment where oxygen and UV were extremely limited. Hence solubility and bronzing may have been affected due to a being in such a unique environment.

Find me an ink and paper expert who would be willing to stake their professional reputation on the above as being nonsense.

[rjpalmer]

Find me an ink and paper expert who would be willing to stake their professional reputation on the above as being nonsense.

I don't know what is more disappointing, Ero--the fact that you are trying to bluff your way through, or the fact that Ike immediately upvotes your posts without giving them the least bit of thought. This lack of effort really shows that I am wasting my time.

For starters, you have confused ink bronzing with ink bonding to the paper fibers. They are two different processes, yet you are clearly confused and write as if they are interchangeable.

Iron gall ink soaks into the paper and as it hardens and ages, it becomes indelible. You can't wash it out. And, despite what you imply, an iron gall ink can be thoroughly attached to the paper without ever bronzing. Some iron gall inks are still black after centuries, even though they are thoroughly non soluble. The lack of color change has to do with the additives used and how they were mixed.

You also seem to be confused by bronzing. All bronzing really is is rusting--iron gall ink contains--surprise---iron, and the iron ions in the ink oxidize as they are exposed to oxygen and atmospheric moisture. Many of these inks tend to turn reddish brown over time. There are dozens of papers readily available that explain the chemistry.

If you don't think something can rust without being exposed to ultraviolet light, try this experiment: bury an iron nail two feet underground and dig it up a year later.

But all of this is neither here, nor there, because I am not referring to bronzing. I am referring to the ink drying, hardening, and bonding to the paper fibers.

You mention that light can damage ink and paper. Yes. Most people know that. You can certainly slop wet ink or wet paint or even wet porridge on a sheet of paper and set it out in the hot sun and it will dry, harden, and begin to degrade.

But for some strange reason you don't seem to think this will also happen if you set the wet ink or the wet paint or the wet porridge in a dark closet or under a set of floorboards.

Really? Even after two months? Or two years? Or two decades? Or 102 years?

On what is this belief based?

I'll tell you what. Let's cut to the chase.

I will come back shortly and demonstrate how we know that the Maybrick Diary was created in April 1992.

[StevenOwl]

I don't know what is more disappointing, Ero--the fact that you are trying to bluff your way through, or the fact that Ike immediately upvotes your posts without giving them the least bit of thought. This lack of effort really shows that I am wasting my time.

The like was from me - I think you owe Ike an apology.

[Iconoclast]

The like was from me - I think you owe Ike an apology.

Thanks for this, Owly. It's unfortunately just one more example of the well-poisoning which you have to face if you argue in favour of Maybrick in any form.

And - before RJ asks me to state the blindingly obvious - it is well-poisoning because it is designed to imply that I put no effort into my posts/opinions.

Further, I'm sure that RJ knows all too well that I couldn't have proven that I hadn't upvoted ero b's post so your post was much appreciated.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Iron gall ink soaks into the paper and as it hardens and ages, it becomes indelible. You can't wash it out. And, despite what you imply, an iron gall ink can be thoroughly attached to the paper without ever bronzing. Some iron gall inks are still black after centuries, even though they are thoroughly non soluble. The lack of color change has to do with the additives used and how they were mixed.

Well which one is it, RJ? I freely admit to being absolutely no expert on ink but - as I understand it - an ink from 1888/1889 would be iron gall?

From the viper Melvin Harris:
“But the ink in the Diary is not bronzed in the way that an ink of that age would be. It is (or was in 1992-93) a washed out blue-black in hue. At that time it looked fresh and new, with perhaps evidence of a degree of dilution, a fact I remarked on when I examined it (courtesy of the security guard) at the end of the book launch.”

I have no doubt whatsoever that my ignorance will be swiftly corrected by you but - for now - I am confused as Harris seems to have implied that the ink in 1992/1993 did not look like ink should have looked if it was set down in 1889/1889, but your comments appear to imply that how the ink looked in 1992/1993 was potentially irrelevant if the ink used in 1888/1889 was of a particular type ("The lack of color change has to do with the additives used and how they were mixed.".)

[Iconoclast]

On Tuesday October 5, 1993, the day after Harrison's first book was published, the Liverpool Daily Post published an article titled Publishers defiant as Ripper diary unveiled. In it, they reported the following illuminating exchange between a conniving Melvin Harris, deliberately waiting for Smith to close the press launch and publisher Robert Smith. The Post reported:

Harris launched bitter attack on diary. The tension rose as Harris fulminated: “This is a fake. It is a modern fake most likely by someone who was schooled in the 1930s.” Harris pressed Smith to justify claim that Maybrick’s will is a fake, adding, “That will is not in dispute.”

Smith hit back: “Melvin Harris’s name occurs in almost every article that has been printed. I wonder why he is so interested in doing this diary down?”

Harris interrupted: “You know why. I have a reputation at stake [Ike: he wasn't a co-author nor was he a consultant so his reputation was entirely irrelevant]. I will not endorse this thing [Ike: he wasn't asked to endorse the original publication as far as I am aware]. I have no ulterior motive [Ike: Oh please - everyone always has a motive, whether 'ulterior' or not!], it’s not money [Ike: And yet money was obviously at stake?].”

Smith claimed real reason for criticism was that Harris has rival book coming out next month, naming completely different Ripper suspect. [Ike: Well fancy that! (It eventually came out in the summer of 1994, as I recall)]

Harris described the locus of his pathological campaign to clear the field so that his irrelevant book on Stephenson was not overshadowed by the actual solution to the crimes as the 'Committee for integrity'.

As I have said many times before, 'integrity' my arse.

[rjpalmer]

HOW WE KNOW THE MAYBRICK DIARY IS A MODERN FAKE, EXPLAINED IN LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES.

Despite various claims made on this thread, the diary cannot be an old document. Here's how we know.

The diary uses iron gall ink, and over a period of weeks and months, iron gall ink will permanently bond to paper.

This chemical process is unavoidable--all it takes is time and oxygen.

The important thing to realize is that the Maybrick Diary is no different: it, too, is written in iron gall ink and it, too, is permanently attached to the paper it is written on.

How do we know this?

We know this because in November 1994, the University of Leeds was commissioned to test the diary and to do this the scientists involved needed to dissolve a small sample of the diary’s ink.

They found that it was nearly impossible to do so. The ink was almost entirely and irreversibly bonded to the paper.

The important part of the report will be reprinted below, but in brief, Leeds tried to dissolve the ink using the solvent MEK.

I used to occasionally work with MEK because my old company used it to clean ink-jet printers when they became gummed-up with dry ink. It is nasty stuff (it can cause nerve damage) but if nothing else works, MEK will do the trick.

Note that MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) is closely related to Dimethyl Ketone (another name for acetone) which was the solvent that Dr. Baxendale used in his July 1992 analysis. Also bear in mind that Baxendale diluted the acetone he used with an equal amount of distilled water.

Acetone is, in fact, merely liquid ketone, but methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) is generally considered the more effective solvent because it doesn't evaporate as quickly due to its other ingredients.

Instead of using distilled water, Leeds diluted the MEK with isopropyl alcohol and ammonia.

Yet, when Leeds soaked samples of the Maybrick Diary’s ink and paper in this solution, they noticed the ink would not dissolve, nor separate from the paper.

Just as one would expect from an old document, the diary’s iron gall ink was entirely hardened and attached to the paper; it behaved just like documents from 1908 and 1925 had behaved when tested by Baxendale back in 1992. (See previous post).

Remarkably, Leeds also heated up the solvent. Heat activates the molecules, making them bounce around more freely, so this should have made it easier for the ink to dissolve---just like hot water does a better job at dissolving dried mud from a pair of trousers than plain cold water does.

Yet, even with the solvent heated, the diary’s ink wasn't dissolving or separating from the paper.

Leeds also bombarded the ink and paper sample with ultrasonic waves, which sends hundreds of vibrations per second into every crease and crevice of the ink and paper—sort of like tiny, invisible scrub bushes.

These ultrasonic cleaning machines were also used where I worked; if all else failed when trying to dislodge dried ink from a printer’s nozzle we would place the nozzle in a bath of MEK in the ultrasonic cleaning machine’s tray and turn it on, letting the vibrations work their magic for a few minutes or half an hour. The ink would eventually dissolve and work free.

Yet, using this same procedure, Leeds still found the diary’s ink insoluble. Clearly, the ink and the paper were permanently bonded. The Maybrick Diary behaved like an old document.

Here it is.

The following is from The Report of A. Kazlauciunas of Wolfson Laboratory, Department of Colour Chemistry, University of Leeds, dated 24 November 1994 (TLC procedure by A. Davey):

TLC - Procedure

The Diamine Blank Manuscript Ink was spotted onto a standard aluminum oxide thin layer chromatography plate and eluted using a solvent combination of methyl ethyl ketone, isopropyl alcohol and ammonia [ratio 1:1:1].

****Ink scrapings from the diary were then soaked in 40 µ litres of this solvent combination, yet despite warming and ultrasound treatment, the ink remained bound to the paper***

The TLC associated with the Diamine Ink is illustrated in PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER 1. This shows how the ink has separated into four different Rf value colour bands. PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER 2 compares the Diamine Ink (fully dissolved in the solvent mixture) with the diary ink/paper fragments (not soluble in the solvent mixture).

----

Think about what this means, folks.

In November 1994 – two years and seven months after Mike Barrett first brought the scrapbook to London---the diary’s ink was utterly insoluble. It behaved just like any other old document written in iron gall ink. The ink wouldn’t dissolve. And it was still left stuck to the paper.

The MEK was even heated and the ink and paper bombarded with ultrasonic waves.

The ink would still would not dissolve or give up color.

This was great news for those who believed in the diary’s antiquity, except for one damning detail.

Back on July 1, 1992, Dr. David Baxendale had already tested the ink’s solubility.

He had placed an identical sample of the diary’s ink and paper into a diluted, unheated solution of acetone and water and watched as it quickly dissolved, so much so that left almost no ink on the paper.

These radically differing results have only one credible explanation: Barrett wasn’t lying. The diary was only about 10 weeks old when Baxendale tested it on 1 July 1992. It had been finished a mere eighty days earlier, to be precise, and this meant that the ink hadn’t had time to permanently bond to the paper fibers.

By the time Leeds tested it again 28 months later, it had.

And really, why should this surprise us? We now know that Barrett went shopping for a blank Victorian Diary at the end of March 1992 and we also know that the Diary’s text quotes a police inventory list that hadn’t been published until 1987/1988 and then only in two books—one of which Barrett used to create his bogus research notes.

What a cheeky bastard.

And this means that Mike’s boast of having churned-out the physical diary in only 11 days is April 1992 is true.

Q.E.D.