The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[erobitha]

Poor Jay Hartley. Doesn't even warrant a nod.

I haven't forgotten you, Jay, even if others have.

Thanks for that RJ. I'm touched.

[erobitha]

I still very much agree that Maybrick is JtR, as Ike stated, because of the watch. I don't think he wrote the diary that is in Robert Smith's possession. That still leaves quite a few scenarios in my view.

I plan on releasing a blog post soon explaining my theory is more detail, with my proposed plan of action to try and conclusively prove it one way or another.

[caz]

Poor Jay Hartley. Doesn't even warrant a nod.

I haven't forgotten you, Jay, even if others have.

I'm sorry, Ike, but it appears that somewhere hidden in her right good bollocking of me she is giving your ideas a 'no dice.'

The door is closed; the key is turned.

There is no hope, my dear boy, that either of us will ever seduce her away from her own weird theory that the diary was an old spoof with deliberate spelling errors, hidden under Maybrick's 'virgin' floorboards by the Great Unknown and Unknowable author who, as far as can be shown, first put the phrases 'bumbling buffoon' and 'one off instance' to paper and had access to a City of London Police inventory list long before it was available to the public in 1984.

What a hill to die on, but I'm told such ideas are 'coherent.'

So coherent they must be.

I'm almost tempted to once again mention trace amounts of chloroacetamide and the lack of bronzing as noted by Dr. Baxendale and a dozen other things, but why bother when the key is turned, and my own ideas are so obviously foolish and unconvincing?

Shalom.

"Throw me a frickin' bone here."

Somehow, I don't think Ike needed Palmer to tell him what he already knows from the old nag's mouth, and if he was currently aware that Jay Hartley does indeed make it "Just the Two of Us" - but not in a Dr. Evil and Mini-Me way - he didn't need the kindly reminder that he is not quite alone.

As I had not seen Jay posting on the subject in quite a while, I did not want to presume his current thinking or comment publicly on a position that might have changed over that time due to his own ongoing research. As Palmer's speciality is to live in the past and dredge up posts from the dawn of diary time, to highlight inconsistences between then and now [due to new information sticking its oar in - down with that sort of thing], or to argue in the here and now against speculation that the poster has long since modified or abandoned, I'm not going to encroach on his familiar turf.

I prefer living in the present and addressing what I know to be a poster's current thinking. But I can see Palmer stuck in the past in the above post, where he writes of a forlorn hope of ever seducing me away from a theory I parted company with ages ago. He completely ignores the many times I have since made it clear that my continuing disbelief in Mike Barrett's lies about the diary's creation does not rely, and never has relied, on any theory about when it was written. As far as I'm concerned, it could have been as recently as the late 1980s, eventually finding its way into Mike's hands, but I'm not having it that the handwriting is Anne's, any more than it's Mike's or Maybrick's. There are other considerations, too numerous to mention again here, which scream against the Barretts creating it, just one of which is that I know of no case where a hoaxer with no track record has taken their own literary hoax to market within a week of ink meeting paper, pretending to want it authenticated and letting a stream of experts in various fields have a bash at it, while only too well aware that the findings could only ever be inconclusive at best, but with a far greater likelihood that the recent faker's 'fingerprints' would be detectable all over it.

It would be a hard enough scenario to swallow whole if this was someone with known previous experience, in the wake of the Hitler Diaries; impossible in the case of Mike Barrett, expecting his wife's handiwork to go unsuspected and undetected if she only thought she was converting an Edwardian photo album into a marketing gimmick for an unashamedly fictional story. Close enough to impossible if she was doing her best to make her handwriting unrecognisable, but who would have expected Mike to know if she'd done a good job of it or a lousy one?

[rjpalmer]

Baxendale was a busted flush the moment he sent his asinine first report to Smith and anything he subsequently claimed is tarnished by the very strong possibility that he was happy to turn the screw if almost certainly not the key.

Utter bullcrap, Ike, and your crude misrepresentation is an EXCELLENT example why it is pointless to discuss the hoax with you and Caz.

Even now--30 years after-the-fact--you are gleefully regurgitating Smith and Harrison's misguided attempt to discredit the utterly respectable and highly respected former Home Office document examiner, Dr. Baxendale, based on a misunderstanding that was corrected three decades ago. It's really quite reprehensible that you would do so.

As has been patiently explained dozens of times, Dr. Baxendale was not a chemist and did not make a chemical analysis of the ink. He made a visual examination of the Diary's text using an expensive microscope, line by line, and found no evidence of iron oxidation (ie., bronzing) which he believed should have been present in a Victorian document, since the Victorians mainly used iron gall ink and bronzing is a very frequent characteristic of such documents.

Based on the lack of bronzing he reported to Harrison, in his shorthand way, that there was 'no evidence of iron' by which he later explained, in great detail, meant iron oxidation--the brownish tint that is characteristic of iron gall inks as they age. Martin Fido, among others, saw Baxendale's explanation and passed this on to the diary world clear back in the 1990s, on this very forum, so it is appalling that you still ignore it in order to make a cheap point against a man who cannot defend himself.

Baxendale's observations were actually debilitating to the diary's alleged antiquity because Dr. Eastaugh also noted a lack of bronzing, and Robert Smith himself wrote a letter admitting a lack of bronzing.

It was only over three years later, in October 1995, that faint, scattered bronzing was first noted by Alec Voller, drawing the obvious conclusion that the ink bronzed in a few areas between 1992 and 1995.

As Melvin Harris reported on these boards back in 2000:


Footnote:- In his foreword to Anne's book Keith Skinner writes about Alec Voller's discovery of age-bronzing and fading in the Diary ink on 30 October 1995. But Keith is out of touch with the facts. These show that the bronzing is recent. It was not there in 1992, 1993, and 1994. Six independent examiners can vouch for that. And we can now show that the authentic Diamine ink will bronze in under three years. To clinch things we also have Robert Smith's written admission, to Nick Warren, of December 21st 1994 that there were no signs of bronzing. He wrote "Your comment about 'browning' is not, as far as I know, conclusive. I believe iron was used in all commonly-used Victorian inks apart from Indian ink. Yet, I have a large number of Victorian documents, which have not 'bronzed' some of which were examined and compared with the Diary ink by Dr Eastaugh. Neither Dr Eastaugh in his report on aging of the Diary ink (18 June 1993), nor Leeds University, nor Robert A.H. Smith, Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Library, found a problem with the colour of the ink." NB: This important information has been withheld by Mrs Harrison from her revised paperback, but Voller's words are given at length. Yet this earlier material clearly overrides anything observed years later. Does Keith approve of her actions?


I'll leave you it, since you're still stuck in the 90s. Howse that new Nirvana album?

[The Baron]

I still very much agree that Maybrick is JtR, as Ike stated, because of the watch. I don't think he wrote the diary that is in Robert Smith's possession. That still leaves quite a few scenarios in my view.

I plan on releasing a blog post soon explaining my theory is more detail, with my proposed plan of action to try and conclusively prove it one way or another.

Oh, if you’d just asked me before this whole plan of action business, I could’ve saved you so much time and effort!

If you’d just paused for a second and said, “Hey, do you think engraving names in watches is solid evidence?”
I could’ve hit you with a quick, resounding “No,” and we could all have gone out for coffee instead....

A "plan of action" for proving Maybrick was the Ripper?

What’s the first step? Polishing the watch to see if it reveals a secret hologram? Or deciphering invisible ink in the diary margins that says, “Yes, it’s me, Maybrick, thanks for playing!” Oh, and then what? Posting a tweet that says, “Case closed, guys, thanks to my plan of action”?

You didn’t need a blog post, a plan, or a theory. You just needed a friend to say, “Mate, a scratched up watch and a suspect diary don’t exactly scream ‘serial killer mastermind.’” But no, you’ve committed, and now we’re all stuck here waiting for your grand reveal...

So please, next time, just ask before you start carving out time for a project. I promise my advice is cheaper, faster, and about 99% more grounded in reality.



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

I'm sure ero b will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that he too questions that Mr J Maybrick wrote the Mr J Maybrick scrapbook.

Sounds like a Barrettesque moment.

"It wasn't Maybick who dunnit it, but Maybrick dunnit. It's 50/50."

Yes, I'm aware of Jay's theory that someone found the almost invisible scratches on the watch and then created an obviously hoaxed diary to 'support it,' somehow managing to plant it under Dodd's floorboards.

After all, what better way is there to prove Maybrick was the Ripper than to create an obviously hoaxed confessional not in his handwriting complete with incorrect details and using phrases that no one has traced in print before the 1930s?

I can't see anything wrong with his theory, but I better stop now or Caroline Brown will accuse me of 'getting off' by casting doubt on harmless, minority theories.

Shalom.

[caz]

I still very much agree that Maybrick is JtR, as Ike stated, because of the watch. I don't think he wrote the diary that is in Robert Smith's possession. That still leaves quite a few scenarios in my view.

I plan on releasing a blog post soon explaining my theory is more detail, with my proposed plan of action to try and conclusively prove it one way or another.

Hi Jay,

Thank you for popping in and letting us know a little about your current thinking. I do hope Palmer won't feel the need to go back too far, comparing it with what you posted way back when, like he does when he senses that someone has committed the sin of changing their mind over a period of time.

Yes, the watch is a problem for me, and I readily admit it, because IF the diary was written in the late 1980s, its author would have had to know about the watch's existence and its identifying features, but why would they then have left its discovery to chance in 1993? One explanation could be that the items were in the same place on 9th March 1992, with their joint discovery left to chance, but their immediate separation by the finder had not been anticipated.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I can't see anything wrong with his theory, but I better stop now or Caroline Brown will accuse me of 'getting off' by casting doubt on harmless, minority theories.

Shalom.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up what I'm seeing here, but Palmer may be inferring a more vulgar definition of 'getting off'. What other explanation is there for obsessively casting doubt on harmless, minority theories that pose no threat to majority views?

[caz]

Oh, and I promise I don't get off on reminding people that Robbie Johnson didn't make the scratches and engineer their discovery in 1993, if the Murphys used jeweller's rouge on them in 1992.

That alone would knock the Barretts out as the diary's creators - unless anyone wants to believe Mike's claim to have made the scratches himself before sending the watch with a mate over to the Murphys.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

Hi Jay,

Thank you for popping in and letting us know a little about your current thinking. I do hope Palmer won't feel the need to go back too far, comparing it with what you posted way back when, like he does when he senses that someone has committed the sin of changing their mind over a period of time.

Yes, the watch is a problem for me, and I readily admit it, because IF the diary was written in the late 1980s, its author would have had to know about the watch's existence and its identifying features, but why would they then have left its discovery to chance in 1993? One explanation could be that the items were in the same place on 9th March 1992, with their joint discovery left to chance, but their immediate separation by the finder had not been anticipated.

Love,

Caz
X

As usual, Caz, you are already ahead of me!

[erobitha]

Oh, if you’d just asked me before this whole plan of action business, I could’ve saved you so much time and effort!

If you’d just paused for a second and said, “Hey, do you think engraving names in watches is solid evidence?”
I could’ve hit you with a quick, resounding “No,” and we could all have gone out for coffee instead....

A "plan of action" for proving Maybrick was the Ripper?

What’s the first step? Polishing the watch to see if it reveals a secret hologram? Or deciphering invisible ink in the diary margins that says, “Yes, it’s me, Maybrick, thanks for playing!” Oh, and then what? Posting a tweet that says, “Case closed, guys, thanks to my plan of action”?

You didn’t need a blog post, a plan, or a theory. You just needed a friend to say, “Mate, a scratched up watch and a suspect diary don’t exactly scream ‘serial killer mastermind.’” But no, you’ve committed, and now we’re all stuck here waiting for your grand reveal...

So please, next time, just ask before you start carving out time for a project. I promise my advice is cheaper, faster, and about 99% more grounded in reality.



The Baron

Such a generous offer.

By the way, can I commend you on how impressive your English has improved since it is not your first language. That truly deserves recognition.

Back to your offer. Opinions count for very little in the end. Yours or mine for that matter. What does matter is trying to piece together a truth that makes sense of all the various pieces of the jigsaw.

All I want is the truth. Michael Barrett as the hoaxer is not the truth, but should you have any meaningful theories outside of Mike or Anne as hoaxers, then by all means, please share.

Changing one's mind to evolving evidence is not a sign of a weak mind, as some would claim.

[erobitha]

Oh, and I promise I don't get off on reminding people that Robbie Johnson didn't make the scratches and engineer their discovery in 1993, if the Murphys used jeweller's rouge on them in 1992.

That alone would knock the Barretts out as the diary's creators - unless anyone wants to believe Mike's claim to have made the scratches himself before sending the watch with a mate over to the Murphys.

Love,

Caz
X

I believe the Murphys lied. But the irony is that those who believe the scratches were added post-purchase from Stewarts are also accusing the Murphys of lying. So who is right? It would appear to me that we agree on at least one thing.

Perhaps the Murphys were not giving us the full picture one way or another?

[erobitha]

Sounds like a Barrettesque moment.

"It wasn't Maybick who dunnit it, but Maybrick dunnit. It's 50/50."

Yes, I'm aware of Jay's theory that someone found the almost invisible scratches on the watch and then created an obviously hoaxed diary to 'support it,' somehow managing to plant it under Dodd's floorboards.

After all, what better way is there to prove Maybrick was the Ripper than to create an obviously hoaxed confessional not in his handwriting complete with incorrect details and using phrases that no one has traced in print before the 1930s?

I can't see anything wrong with his theory, but I better stop now or Caroline Brown will accuse me of 'getting off' by casting doubt on harmless, minority theories.

Shalom.

That's because the person who hoaxed it was not a professional hoaxer. They had good intentions, but the watch alone would not be enough to point researchers in the right direction. After all, the scratches were barely legible to the naked eye, as you rightly claim. It required a little help, even if it was not executed as professionally as it could have been.

I will abandon my theory when someone can show me a date that conflicts with James Maybrick not being in London at the time of the murders. Every dig seems to indicate evidence that sways the other way.

[rjpalmer]

Dr. Baxendale was not a chemist and did not make a chemical analysis of the ink.

Let me correct this. I'm having technical issues, and this suffered from an unwanted autocorrect.

It should have read:

"Dr. Baxendale was not a chemist and did not mean a chemical analysis of the ink."

I'd like to reproduce Martin Fido's thoughts on this, quoting Dr. Baxendale, but it might take a few days. Baxendale did conduct an analysis and believed the ink contained nigrosine, but I was referring to his statements about iron oxidation. I thought Martin did a good job of explaining the confusion.

[John Wheat]

New hoax