One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[milchmanuk]

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

is this your own book?

[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]

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 !

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

Thank you, Erobitha.

It never occurred to me to compare a man's personal convictions about UFOs with a controlled experiment conducted in a laboratory.

Whatever was I thinking?

With that weighty observation, I think we are done here.

[Iconoclast]

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.

And how more convincing might it be if we all saw the official report he wrote (July 9, 1992) which documented the findings he so bizarrely ignored just eight short days earlier.

"I'm getting around to it", he probably thought when Smith challenged him.

My arse.

[Iconoclast]

Thank you, Erobitha.

It never occurred to me to compare a man's personal convictions about UFOs with a controlled experiment conducted in a laboratory.

Whatever was I thinking?

With that weighty observation, I think we are done here.

I once met Neil Armstrong and I took the opportunity to ask him if he was the first man on the moon how come the cameras recorded the event. He said (surprisingly happily though he must have been so sick of the question) that a camera was extended out from the lunar module. Hmmm, thought I. I've never seen a mechanical arm extending from the Eagle as Armstrong fell down the stairs, getting his line wrong in the process.

Just saying.

[rjpalmer]

And how more convincing might it be if we all saw the official report he wrote (July 9, 1992) which documented the findings he so bizarrely ignored just eight short days earlier.

How can the "findings" have been "bizarrely ignored" if the experiment wasn't actually conducted until after Smith asked for a further chemical analysis?

In several posts in the archives, Robert Smith himself refers to 'a first report' and 'a second report' without any hint of outrage or any mention of a conspiracy theory attached to it.

Of course, being a former employee of the Home Office, is it possible that Dr. Baxendale was involved in the Masonic cover-up that Bruce Robinson describes? Was Baxendale a Freemason?

Will that be your next line of defense, Ike?

You two have a great weekend and watch out for flying saucers!