17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons

[Cogidubnus]

The samples of handwriting presented so far are interesting, but:-

The examples we saw from Sir Tempus were spot-on. They were self-evidently written by two people who wrote those words in exactly the same way. There was absolutely no approximation, and absolutely no reasonable likelihood of being false positives. Indeed, one might be forgiven for thinking they were all written by just one person.

To my eye there are generic similarities between the samples chosen...and that's all...Whilst I appreciate your desire to talk up your case, I don't believe you have sufficient grounds to be quite as specific as you have been above.

The chances of anyone finding an example of handwriting that matches it is incredibly remote.

The subsequent research you suggest is admirable but unlikely to happen as I assume we all have day jobs here?

Really? Well you're putting forward a very very firm proposition, and in my book at least, that places the onus on you to provide some evidence that you've at least looked at alternatives, prior to reaching those conclusions. If you are correct it could only strengthen your case...

All the best

Dave

[spyglass]

Hi Soothsayer,

Well...to repeat a quote " We just cant shake it "

[Soothsayer]

Really? Well you're putting forward a very very firm proposition, and in my book at least, that places the onus on you to provide some evidence that you've at least looked at alternatives, prior to reaching those conclusions. If you are correct it could only strengthen your case...

What I most certainly will confess to is always seeking to make the counter argument in the same dogmatic tones as the argument itself, as the argument against the journal is rarely made without huge prejudice which reveals itself in the finality of the tone of its construction. I see myself as the balance in these things, using my wisdom genes and my general clevernessometer to eradicate the possibility of imbalancementliness.

I'm sure you understand.

I'm perfectly open to the debate, unlike many.

You seem a nice enough chap, though, Dave. We must have a beer some time.

[Soothsayer]

Hi Soothsayer,

Well...to repeat a quote " We just cant shake it "

Hi Spysie,

And if we could, we would accept it with good grace. But until then!

Cheers,

Soothster

[Cogidubnus]

You seem a nice enough chap, though, Dave. We must have a beer some time

That's very kind of you, and if our paths cross I'd be delighted to have a beer or three with you (depends on the proximity of our stamping grounds!)...

All the best

Dave

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks. Glad you recognised my hyperbole. Next time, satire.

Vogue was carefully chosen. There are very few words in English today that have not occurred before. However, there are times when a word is fashionable; another, not.

Yes, I know what is meant by 'in vogue'.

And that's sarcasm (heh-heh).

The oft repeated derogatory for female was over done. The word would be very much in use today.

Over done? Presumably it would have been fine then, if used but once or twice?

Not much of an argument, I have to say, considering the author's obvious penchant for repeating certain words and themes ad nauseam.

Maybe the word was felt to be rather in keeping with a prostitute killer free to write anything at all in his secret diary, in an age when its public use was far from acceptable. This wasn't a public address by the vicar.

Proven anachronism? No, never claimed that.

Pre-1970? Very possible. Pre-1900? ah, no.

And there's the rub - obligatory concession followed up with another hunch ('ah, no') dressed up as definitely ascertained fact.

Not good form in any age.

But did you mean 'impossible' for pre-1900, or just not 'very possible'? I'm always willing to give benefit of the doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

To suggest the Diary was created before the 1980's shows either ignorance, wishful thinking or naivete on the part of the commentator.

While I haven't seen ANY evidence that suggests the Diary author wrote the Sept 17th letter, I'd consider it possible only because both were likely created around the same time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

To suggest the Diary was created before the 1980's shows either ignorance, wishful thinking or naivete on the part of the commentator.

Tell that to Rod McNeil and the Rendell team, Tom. They were commissioned back in 1993 by Warner Books to date when ink met paper, and initially McNeil suggested 1921, give or take a dozen years. Eventually he settled on 'prior to 1970'.

In 1995, ink chemist Alec Voller gave his professional opinion that ink met paper at least 90 years previously.

So was it ignorance, wishful thinking or naivety on their part? Or perhaps all three?

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Caz. No, that would be ineptitude or simply faulty dating methods. A 50 year range in a document only purported to be 100 years old should not inspire confidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

" . . . initially McNeil suggested 1921, give or take a dozen years. Eventually he settled on 'prior to 1970'. In 1995, ink chemist Alec Voller gave his professional opinion that ink met paper at least 90 years previously."

Thank you, that's the best laugh I've had this week.

Do you happen to know if it's true that the giveaway with the Turin Shroud was the "dry-clean only" label?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"Over done? Presumably it would have been fine then, if used but once or twice?'

It's not just a word out of place, but such a repetition. It does not sound like the Victorian documents which I have examined. But, to be fair, there is one "letter"--the one laced with unusual obscenities--which I would have miscategorised. (It's in "Letters from Hell.)

"Not much of an argument, I have to say, considering the author's obvious penchant for repeating certain words and themes ad nauseam."

No argument at all; rather, an observation.

"And there's the rub - obligatory concession followed up with another hunch ('ah, no') dressed up as definitely ascertained fact."

Neither hunch, nor fact. Merely another observation based on style.

"But did you mean 'impossible' for pre-1900, or just not 'very possible'?"

The latter, but a misuse of language. Should read, "Not very likely."

Cheers.
LC

[Soothsayer]

Hi Caz,

" . . . initially McNeil suggested 1921, give or take a dozen years. Eventually he settled on 'prior to 1970'. In 1995, ink chemist Alec Voller gave his professional opinion that ink met paper at least 90 years previously."

Thank you, that's the best laugh I've had this week.

Do you happen to know if it's true that the giveaway with the Turin Shroud was the "dry-clean only" label?

Regards,

Simon

I don't follow the logic that such assertions are laughable? Is Alec Voller's professional opinion suspect in some way which we haven't been previously aware of?

If the ink went down no later than 1905, then the journal was self-evidently no modern forgery. In your world, I guess, it would have to become a historical forgery. In my world, of course, applying the simple principles of Soothsayer's Razor, it is more logically the real deal than it is a forgery (why would it be a forgery more than it would be the real deal in the absence of good reason for it other than reader incredulity?).

The 'sciences' of McNeill and Voller both indicate that the journal was written long long before the centenary of the crimes and the publishing of information which was previously not public domain (e.g., Kelly's heart, and the empty tin match box) which means that an historical forger has to be one of a very select few who knew these and other details long before the public did.

For me, I still see nothing inherent in the journal which points to that person being anyone other than the otherwise blindingly obvious ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Soothy,

You've obviously undergone a sense of humour by-pass.

I don't know the following boffins. For all I know they were a job-lot from "Forgeries R Us".

McNeil suggested 1921, give or take a dozen years [1909 to 1932]. That obviously doesn't work, for JM popped his clogs in 1889. McNeil then compromised with pre-1970. Good grief, it could have been written before Maybrick was born. Now there's a thing.

Alec Voller next settled on 90 years for ink hitting paper [1900-ish]. Generous soul that I am this encompasses 1890 to 1910 . . . Whoops! Still no good.

So much for the scientific accuracy brought to bear upon this relatively brand-new diary.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

For me, I still see nothing inherent in the journal which points to that person being anyone other than the otherwise blindingly obvious ...

I imagine there are only two people alive (I'm one of them) who can truly appreciate the overwhelming irony of this post.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

night blindness

Hello Tom. It's the arsenic, not the old lace, hey? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC